Loading…

How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

In a systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the available evidence on how frequently general practitioners/family physicians (GPs) use pure placebos (e.g., placebo pills) and non-specific therapies (sometimes referred to as impure placebos; e.g., antibiotics for common cold). We searched M...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2018-08, Vol.13 (8), p.e0202211-e0202211
Main Authors: Linde, Klaus, Atmann, Oxana, Meissner, Karin, Schneider, Antonius, Meister, Ramona, Kriston, Levente, Werner, Christoph
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c718t-c61f7dc51ac36dfbac7372045b69f97407e440a77725c606be36b1433099365d3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c718t-c61f7dc51ac36dfbac7372045b69f97407e440a77725c606be36b1433099365d3
container_end_page e0202211
container_issue 8
container_start_page e0202211
container_title PloS one
container_volume 13
creator Linde, Klaus
Atmann, Oxana
Meissner, Karin
Schneider, Antonius
Meister, Ramona
Kriston, Levente
Werner, Christoph
description In a systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the available evidence on how frequently general practitioners/family physicians (GPs) use pure placebos (e.g., placebo pills) and non-specific therapies (sometimes referred to as impure placebos; e.g., antibiotics for common cold). We searched Medline, PubMed and SCOPUS up to July 2018 to identify cross-sectional quantitative surveys among GPs. Outcomes of primary interest were the percentages of GPs having used any placebo, pure placebos or non-specific therapies at least once in their career, at least once in the last year, at least monthly or at least weekly. Outcomes were described as proportions and pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. Of 674 publications, 16 studies from 13 countries with a total of 2.981 participating GPs (range 27 to 783) met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of GPs having used any form of placebo at least once in their career ranged from 29% to 97%, in the last year at least once from 46% to 95%, at least monthly from 15% to 89%, and at least weekly from 1% to 75%. The use of non-specific therapies by far outnumbered the use of pure placebo. For example, the proportion of GPs using pure placebos at least monthly varied between 2% and 15% compared to 53% and 89% for non-specific therapies; use at least weekly varied between 1% and 3% for pure placebos and between 16% and 75% for non-specific therapies. Besides eliciting placebos effects, many other reasons related to patient expectations, demands and medical problems were reported as reasons for applying placebo interventions. High prevalence estimates of placebo use among GPs are mainly driven by the frequent use of non-specific therapies; pure placebos are used rarely. The interpretation of our quantitative findings is complicated by the diversity of definitions and survey methods.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0202211
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2092839170</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A551614329</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_02b3f37115004153be282aee7ed6fe5e</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A551614329</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c718t-c61f7dc51ac36dfbac7372045b69f97407e440a77725c606be36b1433099365d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk19v0zAUxSMEYmPwDRBEQkLwkOI_iV2_gKYJWKVJkxjwajnOTesqiYPtdPSFz47bZlOD9oDy4Mj-nXPtY98keYnRDFOOP6zt4DrVzHrbwQwRRAjGj5JTLCjJGEH08dH_SfLM-zVCBZ0z9jQ5oQjnBAtxmvy5tLeprQN0aWXTJXTgVJP2TulggonWzqeDh7RvlIbS-lR1VdrZLvM9aFMbnZougNtAt6P9p_Rm6wO0KsQVBxsDt3tFC0FlKm53642P9VI_RM3WP0-e1Krx8GIcz5IfXz5_v7jMrq6_Li7OrzLN8TxkmuGaV7rASlNW1aXSnHKC8qJkohY8RxzyHCnOOSk0Q6wEykqcU4qEoKyo6Fny-uDbN9bLMTovCRJkTgXmKBKLA1FZtZa9M61yW2mVkfsJ65ZSuXiqBiQiJa3jFeACoRwXtAQyJwqAQ8VqKCB6fRyrDWULlY7hxFQnptOVzqzk0m4kw2ieFzwavBsNnP01gA-yNV5D06gO7LDfN6VCYFFE9M0_6MOnG6mligcwXW1jXb0zledFgVnMiohIzR6g4ldBa3R8DLWJ8xPB-4kgMgF-h6UavJeLm2__z17_nLJvj9gVqCasvG2G_RubgvkB1M5676C-DxkjuWuTuzTkrk3k2CZR9ur4gu5Fd31B_wI8gA4H</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2092839170</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><creator>Linde, Klaus ; Atmann, Oxana ; Meissner, Karin ; Schneider, Antonius ; Meister, Ramona ; Kriston, Levente ; Werner, Christoph</creator><contributor>MacLure, Katie</contributor><creatorcontrib>Linde, Klaus ; Atmann, Oxana ; Meissner, Karin ; Schneider, Antonius ; Meister, Ramona ; Kriston, Levente ; Werner, Christoph ; MacLure, Katie</creatorcontrib><description>In a systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the available evidence on how frequently general practitioners/family physicians (GPs) use pure placebos (e.g., placebo pills) and non-specific therapies (sometimes referred to as impure placebos; e.g., antibiotics for common cold). We searched Medline, PubMed and SCOPUS up to July 2018 to identify cross-sectional quantitative surveys among GPs. Outcomes of primary interest were the percentages of GPs having used any placebo, pure placebos or non-specific therapies at least once in their career, at least once in the last year, at least monthly or at least weekly. Outcomes were described as proportions and pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. Of 674 publications, 16 studies from 13 countries with a total of 2.981 participating GPs (range 27 to 783) met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of GPs having used any form of placebo at least once in their career ranged from 29% to 97%, in the last year at least once from 46% to 95%, at least monthly from 15% to 89%, and at least weekly from 1% to 75%. The use of non-specific therapies by far outnumbered the use of pure placebo. For example, the proportion of GPs using pure placebos at least monthly varied between 2% and 15% compared to 53% and 89% for non-specific therapies; use at least weekly varied between 1% and 3% for pure placebos and between 16% and 75% for non-specific therapies. Besides eliciting placebos effects, many other reasons related to patient expectations, demands and medical problems were reported as reasons for applying placebo interventions. High prevalence estimates of placebo use among GPs are mainly driven by the frequent use of non-specific therapies; pure placebos are used rarely. The interpretation of our quantitative findings is complicated by the diversity of definitions and survey methods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202211</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30142199</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Antibiotics ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Careers ; Clinical medicine ; Clinical trials ; Common cold ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Family physicians ; General Practitioners ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Infections ; Intervention ; Medical personnel ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Methods ; People and Places ; Physical Sciences ; Physicians ; Placebo Effect ; Placebos ; Placebos - therapeutic use ; Polls &amp; surveys ; Practice ; Practice Patterns, Physicians ; Primary care ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Social Sciences ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Systematic review ; Viral infections</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-08, Vol.13 (8), p.e0202211-e0202211</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Linde et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Linde et al 2018 Linde et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c718t-c61f7dc51ac36dfbac7372045b69f97407e440a77725c606be36b1433099365d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c718t-c61f7dc51ac36dfbac7372045b69f97407e440a77725c606be36b1433099365d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2902-970X ; 0000-0003-0748-264X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2092839170/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2092839170?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,53791,53793,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30142199$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>MacLure, Katie</contributor><creatorcontrib>Linde, Klaus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atmann, Oxana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meissner, Karin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Antonius</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meister, Ramona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kriston, Levente</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Werner, Christoph</creatorcontrib><title>How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>In a systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the available evidence on how frequently general practitioners/family physicians (GPs) use pure placebos (e.g., placebo pills) and non-specific therapies (sometimes referred to as impure placebos; e.g., antibiotics for common cold). We searched Medline, PubMed and SCOPUS up to July 2018 to identify cross-sectional quantitative surveys among GPs. Outcomes of primary interest were the percentages of GPs having used any placebo, pure placebos or non-specific therapies at least once in their career, at least once in the last year, at least monthly or at least weekly. Outcomes were described as proportions and pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. Of 674 publications, 16 studies from 13 countries with a total of 2.981 participating GPs (range 27 to 783) met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of GPs having used any form of placebo at least once in their career ranged from 29% to 97%, in the last year at least once from 46% to 95%, at least monthly from 15% to 89%, and at least weekly from 1% to 75%. The use of non-specific therapies by far outnumbered the use of pure placebo. For example, the proportion of GPs using pure placebos at least monthly varied between 2% and 15% compared to 53% and 89% for non-specific therapies; use at least weekly varied between 1% and 3% for pure placebos and between 16% and 75% for non-specific therapies. Besides eliciting placebos effects, many other reasons related to patient expectations, demands and medical problems were reported as reasons for applying placebo interventions. High prevalence estimates of placebo use among GPs are mainly driven by the frequent use of non-specific therapies; pure placebos are used rarely. The interpretation of our quantitative findings is complicated by the diversity of definitions and survey methods.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Careers</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Common cold</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Family physicians</subject><subject>General Practitioners</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Placebo Effect</subject><subject>Placebos</subject><subject>Placebos - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Polls &amp; surveys</subject><subject>Practice</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Viral infections</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk19v0zAUxSMEYmPwDRBEQkLwkOI_iV2_gKYJWKVJkxjwajnOTesqiYPtdPSFz47bZlOD9oDy4Mj-nXPtY98keYnRDFOOP6zt4DrVzHrbwQwRRAjGj5JTLCjJGEH08dH_SfLM-zVCBZ0z9jQ5oQjnBAtxmvy5tLeprQN0aWXTJXTgVJP2TulggonWzqeDh7RvlIbS-lR1VdrZLvM9aFMbnZougNtAt6P9p_Rm6wO0KsQVBxsDt3tFC0FlKm53642P9VI_RM3WP0-e1Krx8GIcz5IfXz5_v7jMrq6_Li7OrzLN8TxkmuGaV7rASlNW1aXSnHKC8qJkohY8RxzyHCnOOSk0Q6wEykqcU4qEoKyo6Fny-uDbN9bLMTovCRJkTgXmKBKLA1FZtZa9M61yW2mVkfsJ65ZSuXiqBiQiJa3jFeACoRwXtAQyJwqAQ8VqKCB6fRyrDWULlY7hxFQnptOVzqzk0m4kw2ieFzwavBsNnP01gA-yNV5D06gO7LDfN6VCYFFE9M0_6MOnG6mligcwXW1jXb0zledFgVnMiohIzR6g4ldBa3R8DLWJ8xPB-4kgMgF-h6UavJeLm2__z17_nLJvj9gVqCasvG2G_RubgvkB1M5676C-DxkjuWuTuzTkrk3k2CZR9ur4gu5Fd31B_wI8gA4H</recordid><startdate>20180824</startdate><enddate>20180824</enddate><creator>Linde, Klaus</creator><creator>Atmann, Oxana</creator><creator>Meissner, Karin</creator><creator>Schneider, Antonius</creator><creator>Meister, Ramona</creator><creator>Kriston, Levente</creator><creator>Werner, Christoph</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2902-970X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0748-264X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180824</creationdate><title>How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys</title><author>Linde, Klaus ; Atmann, Oxana ; Meissner, Karin ; Schneider, Antonius ; Meister, Ramona ; Kriston, Levente ; Werner, Christoph</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c718t-c61f7dc51ac36dfbac7372045b69f97407e440a77725c606be36b1433099365d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Careers</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Common cold</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Family physicians</topic><topic>General Practitioners</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Placebo Effect</topic><topic>Placebos</topic><topic>Placebos - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Polls &amp; surveys</topic><topic>Practice</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Viral infections</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Linde, Klaus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atmann, Oxana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meissner, Karin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schneider, Antonius</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meister, Ramona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kriston, Levente</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Werner, Christoph</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database‎ (1962 - current)</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Linde, Klaus</au><au>Atmann, Oxana</au><au>Meissner, Karin</au><au>Schneider, Antonius</au><au>Meister, Ramona</au><au>Kriston, Levente</au><au>Werner, Christoph</au><au>MacLure, Katie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-08-24</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e0202211</spage><epage>e0202211</epage><pages>e0202211-e0202211</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>In a systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the available evidence on how frequently general practitioners/family physicians (GPs) use pure placebos (e.g., placebo pills) and non-specific therapies (sometimes referred to as impure placebos; e.g., antibiotics for common cold). We searched Medline, PubMed and SCOPUS up to July 2018 to identify cross-sectional quantitative surveys among GPs. Outcomes of primary interest were the percentages of GPs having used any placebo, pure placebos or non-specific therapies at least once in their career, at least once in the last year, at least monthly or at least weekly. Outcomes were described as proportions and pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. Of 674 publications, 16 studies from 13 countries with a total of 2.981 participating GPs (range 27 to 783) met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of GPs having used any form of placebo at least once in their career ranged from 29% to 97%, in the last year at least once from 46% to 95%, at least monthly from 15% to 89%, and at least weekly from 1% to 75%. The use of non-specific therapies by far outnumbered the use of pure placebo. For example, the proportion of GPs using pure placebos at least monthly varied between 2% and 15% compared to 53% and 89% for non-specific therapies; use at least weekly varied between 1% and 3% for pure placebos and between 16% and 75% for non-specific therapies. Besides eliciting placebos effects, many other reasons related to patient expectations, demands and medical problems were reported as reasons for applying placebo interventions. High prevalence estimates of placebo use among GPs are mainly driven by the frequent use of non-specific therapies; pure placebos are used rarely. The interpretation of our quantitative findings is complicated by the diversity of definitions and survey methods.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>30142199</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0202211</doi><tpages>e0202211</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2902-970X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0748-264X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2018-08, Vol.13 (8), p.e0202211-e0202211
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2092839170
source Open Access: PubMed Central; Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)
subjects Analysis
Antibiotics
Biology and Life Sciences
Careers
Clinical medicine
Clinical trials
Common cold
Cross-Sectional Studies
Family physicians
General Practitioners
Health aspects
Humans
Infections
Intervention
Medical personnel
Medicine
Medicine and Health Sciences
Meta-analysis
Methods
People and Places
Physical Sciences
Physicians
Placebo Effect
Placebos
Placebos - therapeutic use
Polls & surveys
Practice
Practice Patterns, Physicians
Primary care
Research and Analysis Methods
Social Sciences
Surveys
Surveys and Questionnaires
Systematic review
Viral infections
title How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T14%3A31%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20often%20do%20general%20practitioners%20use%20placebos%20and%20non-specific%20interventions?%20Systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis%20of%20surveys&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Linde,%20Klaus&rft.date=2018-08-24&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e0202211&rft.epage=e0202211&rft.pages=e0202211-e0202211&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0202211&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA551614329%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c718t-c61f7dc51ac36dfbac7372045b69f97407e440a77725c606be36b1433099365d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2092839170&rft_id=info:pmid/30142199&rft_galeid=A551614329&rfr_iscdi=true