Surgeons' behaviors and beliefs regarding placebo effects in surgery.

Background and purpose - Emerging evidence from sham-controlled trials suggest that surgical treatment entails substantial non-specific treatment effects in addition to specific surgical effects. Yet, information on surgeons' actual behaviors and beliefs regarding non-specific treatment and placebo effects is scarce. We determined surgeons' clinical behaviors and attitudes regarding placebo effects.Methods - A national online survey was developed in collaboration with surgeons and administered via an electronic link.Results - All surgical clinics in Sweden were approached and 22% of surgeons participated (n = 105). Surgeons believed it was important for them to interact and build rapport with patients before surgery rather than perform surgery on colleagues' patients (90%). They endorsed the importance of non-specific treatment effects in surgery generally (90%) and reported that they actively harness non-specific treatment effects (97%), including conveying confidence and calm (87%), building a positive interaction (75%), and making eye contact (72%). In communication regarding the likely outcomes of surgery, surgeons emphasized accurate scientific information of benefits/risks (90%) and complete honesty (63%). A majority felt that the improvement after some currently performed surgical procedures might be entirely explained by placebo effects (78%). Surgeons saw benefits with sham-controlled surgery trials, nevertheless, they were reluctant to refer patients to sham controlled trials (46%).Interpretation - Surgeons believe that their words and behaviors are important components of their professional competence. Surgeons saw the patient-physician relationship, transparency, and honesty as critical. Understanding the non-specific components of surgery has the potential to improve the way surgical treatment is delivered and lead to better patient outcomes.

The Effects of Positive or Neutral Communication during Acupuncture for Relaxing Effects: A Sham-Controlled Randomized Trial.

Introduction. The link between patient-clinician communication and its effect on clinical outcomes is an important clinical issue that is yet to be elucidated. Objective. Investigating if communication type (positive or neutral) about the expected treatment outcome affected (i) participants' expectations and (ii) short-term relaxation effects in response to genuine or sham acupuncture and investigating if expectations were related to outcome. Methods. Healthy volunteers (n = 243, mean age of 42) were randomized to one treatment with genuine or sham acupuncture. Within groups, participants were randomized to positive or neutral communication, regarding expected treatment effects. Visual Analogue Scales (0-100 millimeters) were used to measure treatment expectations and relaxation, directly before and after treatment. Results. Participants in the positive communication group reported higher treatment expectancy, compared to the neutral communication group (md 12 versus 6 mm, p = 0.002). There was no difference in relaxation effects between acupuncture groups or between communication groups. Participants with high baseline expectancy perceived greater improvement in relaxation, compared to participants with low baseline levels (md 27 versus 15 mm, p = 0.022). Conclusion. Our data highlights the importance of expectations for treatment outcome and demonstrates that expectations can be effectively manipulated using a standardized protocol that in future research may be implemented in clinical trials.

Ethics and vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Immunization programmes are ethically defensible and society has a significant role to play in providing vaccination against measles and safeguarding herd immunity to optimize its individuals' capabilities. Since preventive actions interfere with individuals who consider themselves as healthy, public health strategies - as distinct from advice in a clinical consultation - require something approaching certainty as to benefits and possible side effects of an intervention. The principle of individual autonomy, a fundamental value in bioethics, often makes discussions covering ethical issues in public health interventions difficult and non-productive as to practical solutions. In encounters intended to provide information on vaccination, discussions regarding risks tend to simplify the issue into an individual one: either the child gets measles or not, or is affected by side effects or not. METHOD AND CONCLUSIONS: A model is suggested for identification and analysis of the ethical conflicts in measles vaccination programmes, which contains two different dimensions: the affected persons and the relevant ethical principles. Justice as solidarity, not utility, should be paired with autonomy in ethical deliberations on preventive health interventions such as a vaccination programme for measles. If the goal is solidarity rather than conformity, the parents must be free to decide what they think is right, because that is what moral responsibility is all about. Solidarity, however, could never be accepted as an argument without parents trusting the messages from the health institutions and availability of reasonable societal support for those who claim an association between vaccinations and possible side effects.

Women's experiences of cervical cellular changes: an unintentional transition from health to liminality?

Cervical cancer screening is a preventive intervention directed towards women to both detect cervical cancer and identify those at risk for developing this disease. It has been argued that participation in screening programmes and early detection situations may lead to new kinds of sickness experiences. This article is based on qualitative phenomenological hermeneutical analysis of interviews with women who have received abnormal Pap smear test results through a population-based outreach screening programme in urban Sweden. The aim of this article is to illuminate the meaning, for the participating women, of the lived experience of receiving notification about an abnormal Pap smear result. The data are presented in terms of two themes: Pap smear for routine and recurrent confirmation of health and unexpected and ambiguous communication about Pap smear results. The findings are discussed as an unintentional transition from confirmation of health to liminality. Whereas medical diagnosis has been discussed as structuring the inchoate, an abnormal Pap smear did not create order for the interviewed women. On the contrary, the notification of an abnormal Pap smear created disorder as the women had expected to be confirmed as healthy but instead neither health nor disease were confirmed or excluded. Even 'simple' technology is shown to have an ontological dimension, with the ability to transform daily taken-for-grantedness of ourselves as primarily healthy to (potentially) unhealthy.

The new age of the molecular family: an anthropological view on the medicalisation of kinship.

Now that genetic inheritance is featuring more and more as an explanation of disease and human behaviour in general, a question that needs to be asked is how such explanations affect people's perceptions of family and kinship and to what extent genetic explanations conflict with broader social developments. Ideas about the genetic inheritance of disease place the family and kin group in the spotlight, requiring all its members to be scrutinised. Research on inheritable diseases entails a medicalization of kinship that reflects and promotes a view of family relationships at odds with the ongoing changes in the structure of families. At a time when family structures are more fluid and less determined by "blood" relationships than ever before we have an increasing emphasis on genetic inheritance as the transmitter of both human behaviour and kinship. Embedded in concepts of genetic inheritance is thus the notion that family and kin are the medium through which inheritance flows. Two cases from an anthropological study will illustrate how genetic mapping leads to the medicalization of kinship.

[Communication problems in evidence-based medicine]. / Kommunikativa problem i den evidensbaserade medicinen.

From a humanistic, social scientific perspective, the most complex task in evidence-based medicine lies in the communication of specialized medical knowledge to non-professionals. Information is never simply the neutral transmission of facts, not even when dealing with scientific knowledge and research. It is always interpreted and evaluated from a particular perspective in a specific context. That information can be neutral is thus a myth. In all medical consultations the process of communication is not just a matter of transmitting information from one who knows to one who does not. Knowledge created and formulated in a scientific context is thus recontextualised first in a clinical situation and then as an interpreted version in people's real lives. Furthermore there are difficulties when practice must be based on current research, in a situation in which no prior clinical experience exists and in which results are interpreted and used regardless of the relative certainty of current evidence.