MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340654226 · doi:10.2196/resprot.5627

Informing Patients About Placebo Effects: Using Evidence, Theory, and Qualitative Methods to Develop a New Website

2016· article· en· W2340654226 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maddy Greville-Harris, Jennifer Bostock, Amy Din, Cynthia A. Graham, George Lewith, Christina Liossi, Tim O’Riordan, Peter White, Lucy Yardley, Felicity L. Bishop

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVersus Arthritis
KeywordsPlaceboPsychological interventionThink aloud protocolIntervention (counseling)PsychologyApplied psychologyQualitative researchClinical trialMedical educationAlternative medicineMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: According to established ethical principles and guidelines, patients in clinical trials should be fully informed about the interventions they might receive. However, information about placebo-controlled clinical trials typically focuses on the new intervention being tested and provides limited and at times misleading information about placebos. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to create an informative, scientifically accurate, and engaging website that could be used to improve understanding of placebo effects among patients who might be considering taking part in a placebo-controlled clinical trial. METHODS: Our approach drew on evidence-, theory-, and person-based intervention development. We used existing evidence and theory about placebo effects to develop content that was scientifically accurate. We used existing evidence and theory of health behavior to ensure our content would be communicated persuasively, to an audience who might currently be ignorant or misinformed about placebo effects. A qualitative 'think aloud' study was conducted in which 10 participants viewed prototypes of the website and spoke their thoughts out loud in the presence of a researcher. RESULTS: The website provides information about 10 key topics and uses text, evidence summaries, quizzes, audio clips of patients' stories, and a short film to convey key messages. Comments from participants in the think aloud study highlighted occasional misunderstandings and off-putting/confusing features. These were addressed by modifying elements of content, style, and navigation to improve participants' experiences of using the website. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an evidence-based website that incorporates theory-based techniques to inform members of the public about placebos and placebo effects. Qualitative research ensured our website was engaging and convincing for our target audience who might not perceive a need to learn about placebo effects. Before using the website in clinical trials, it is necessary to test its effects on key outcomes including patients' knowledge and capacity for making informed choices about placebos.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.483
GPT teacher head0.648
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207