Influence of patient-clinician relationship style on acupuncture outcomes in functional dyspepsia: A multi-site randomized controlled trial in Korea.

INTRODUCTION: Research suggests that a warm and empathic "patient-centered" patient-clinician relationship produces better clinical outcomes when compared with a more neutral "disease-centered" relationship. Acupuncturists performed both styles of therapy for patients with functional dyspepsia in Korea. METHODS: The present randomized controlled trial assigned patients (n = 73) to identical acupuncture treatment with either patient-centered augmented care or disease-centered limited care. The Korean version of the Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI-K) was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included Consultation And Relational Empathy (CARE) scale. RESULTS: Both groups showed improvement in NDI-K. Patient-centered augmented acupuncture produced less effective symptom improvement compared to disease-centered limited acupuncture (NDI-K sum score and frequency; P = 0.008 and P = 0.037 respectively). CARE scores were higher for the augmented versus limited group (P = 0.001), supporting the fidelity of the experimentally controlled patient/clinician relationship. There were no significant differences between the groups in any of other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Patients demonstrated greater improvement following acupuncture conducted with a more neutral, "disease-centered" style of relationship. This result is counter to similar research conducted in Western countries and suggests that cultural factors can significantly shape optimum styles of acupuncture therapy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should consider cultural differences when applying acupuncture therapy.

Brain-to-brain mechanisms underlying pain empathy and social modulation of pain in the patient-clinician interaction.

Social interactions such as the patient-clinician encounter can influence pain, but the underlying dynamic interbrain processes are unclear. Here, we investigated the dynamic brain processes supporting social modulation of pain by assessing simultaneous brain activity (fMRI hyperscanning) from chronic pain patients and clinicians during video-based live interaction. Patients received painful and nonpainful pressure stimuli either with a supportive clinician present (Dyadic) or in isolation (Solo). In half of the dyads, clinicians performed a clinical consultation and intake with the patient prior to hyperscanning (Clinical Interaction), which increased self-reported therapeutic alliance. For the other half, patient-clinician hyperscanning was completed without prior clinical interaction (No Interaction). Patients reported lower pain intensity in the Dyadic, relative to the Solo, condition. In Clinical Interaction dyads relative to No Interaction, patients evaluated their clinicians as better able to understand their pain, and clinicians were more accurate when estimating patients' pain levels. In Clinical Interaction dyads, compared to No Interaction, patients showed stronger activation of the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC and vlPFC) and primary (S1) and secondary (S2) somatosensory areas (Dyadic-Solo contrast), and clinicians showed increased dynamic dlPFC concordance with patients' S2 activity during pain. Furthermore, the strength of S2-dlPFC concordance was positively correlated with self-reported therapeutic alliance. These findings support that empathy and supportive care can reduce pain intensity and shed light on the brain processes underpinning social modulation of pain in patient-clinician interactions. Our findings further suggest that clinicians' dlPFC concordance with patients' somatosensory processing during pain can be boosted by increasing therapeutic alliance.

Placebos in pediatrics: A cross-sectional survey investigating physicians' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Placebo responses are significantly higher in children than in adults, suggesting a potential underused treatment option in pediatric care. To facilitate the clinical translation of these beneficial effects, we explored physicians' current practice, opinions, knowledge, and likelihood of recommending placebos in the future. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey administered by REDCap was conducted at Boston Children's Hospital between October 2021 and March 2022. Physicians (n = 1157) were invited to participate through an email containing a link to a 23-item survey designed to assess physicians' attitudes and perceptions towards the clinical use of placebo in pediatrics. RESULTS: From 207 (18%) returned surveys, 109 (9%) were fully completed. Most respondents (79%) believed that enhancing the therapeutic components that contribute to the placebo response may be a way of improving pediatric care. However, whereas most (62%) found placebo treatments permissible, only one-third reported recommending them. In pediatrics, placebos are typically introduced as a medicine that "might help" (43%). The most common treatments recommended to enhance placebo effects are physical therapy, vitamins, and over-the-counter analgesics. Physicians most frequently recommend placebos for occasional pain, headaches, and anxiety disorders. Finally, the great majority of physicians (87%) stated they would be more likely to recommend placebo treatments if there were safety and ethical guidelines for open-label placebos. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo treatments seem permissible to physicians in pediatric care, but the development of safety and ethical guidelines may be necessary before physicians systematically incorporate the benefits of the placebo effect in pediatrics.

Psychological Predictors of Response to Open-Label Versus Double-Blind Placebo in a Randomized Controlled Trial in Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing evidence that open-label placebo (OLP) may be an efficacious treatment of chronic and functional conditions. However, patient-level predictors of response to OLP have not been clearly identified. The aim of this study is to evaluate the psychological predictors of response to OLP and to compare this to double-blind placebo (DBP) and no-pill control (NPC). METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of data collected in a 6-week randomized controlled trial evaluating placebo effects in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The primary outcome was change in IBS severity. Hierarchical linear regression identified predictors of placebo response in general and compared them between those randomized to OLP, DBP, and NPC. Predictor variables included personality traits, generalized anxiety, depression, visceral sensitivity (a measure of symptom-specific anxiety), and pain catastrophizing. RESULTS: A total of 210 participants (mean age = 42.3 years, 73.3% female) were included. Regression models revealed that visceral sensitivity was a predictor of response to OLP and NPC but not DBP. Interestingly, the effects were opposite, with high visceral sensitivity predicting less improvement in NPC and more improvement in OLP. Pain catastrophizing was a negative predictor of response to OLP (i.e., high pain catastrophizing was associated with less improvement in OLP). Neither visceral sensitivity nor pain catastrophizing played a significant role for response to DBP. CONCLUSIONS: IBS participants who score low on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale but high on the Visceral Sensitivity Index seem to benefit particularly from OLP. Our study suggests that different psychological mechanisms may be involved in DBP and OLP interventions.

Effect of Open-label Placebo on Children and Adolescents With Functional Abdominal Pain or Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Although it is widely believed that concealment or deception is required to elicit a placebo response, recent studies with adults suggest that open-label placebo (OLP) (ie, honestly prescribed placebos) can yield significant benefits. No studies of OLP have been performed with children. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of OLP for the treatment of children and adolescents with functional abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter crossover randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 1, 2015, to June 15, 2018, at 3 US centers among children and adolescents aged 8 to 18 years with functional abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome defined per Rome III criteria. Statistical analysis was performed from March 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020, on an intention-to-treat basis. INTERVENTIONS: Patients completed 1 week of observation prior to randomization to 1 of 2 counterbalanced groups: OLP for 3 weeks followed by a 3-week control period or control period for 3 weeks followed by OLP for 3 weeks. During the OLP period, participants took 1.5 mL of an inert liquid placebo twice a day. A standardized method for explaining the OLP was used, and the interaction with clinicians had the same duration and style for both time periods. Hyoscyamine was allowed as a rescue medication. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the mean daily pain score during each of the interventions, measured on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale, where higher scores indicated greater pain. The number of rescue medications taken during each intervention served as an objective secondary measure. RESULTS: Thirty patients (mean [SD] age, 14.1 [3.4] years; 24 female participants [80.0%]; 16 [53.3%] with functional abdominal pain and 14 [46.7%] with irritable bowel syndrome) completed the study. The mean (SD) pain scores were significantly lower during OLP treatment compared with the control period (39.9 [18.9] vs 45.0 [14.7]; difference, 5.2; 95% CI, 0.2-10.1; P = .03). Patients took nearly twice as many hyoscyamine pills during the control period compared with during the OLP period (mean [SD] number, 3.8 [5.1] pills vs 2.0 [3.0] pills; difference, 1.8 pills; 95% CI, 0.5-3.1 pills). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During OLP, patients with functional abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome reported significantly less pain and took significantly fewer pain medications. Open-label placebo may be an effective treatment for children and adolescents with functional abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02389998.

Effect of antibiotic pretreatment on bacterial engraftment after Fecal Microbiota Transplant (FMT) in IBS-D.

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an attractive strategy to correct microbial dysbiosis in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D). Although the mechanism of FMT is thought to be bacterial engraftment, the best approach to achieve engraftment after FMT in IBS-D (and other diseases) is not clear. We evaluated the effect of FMT (with or without pretreatment with antibiotics) on gut microbiome and symptoms in patients with IBS-D. In this randomized, placebo-controlled, single-center study, 44 patients with IBS-D with a least moderate severity (IBS severity scoring system, i.e., IBS-SSS, ≥175) were randomly assigned to one of four groups: single-dose oral FMT alone, single-dose oral FMT following a 7-day pretreatment course of Ciprofloxacin and Metronidazole (CM-FMT) or Rifaximin (R-FMT), or Placebo FMT. Primary endpoint was engraftment post-FMT and secondary endpoints were changes in IBS-SSS, and IBS-quality of life (IBS-QOL) at week 10. Median engraftment was significantly different among the three FMT groups (P = .013). Engraftment post-FMT was significantly higher in the FMT alone arm (15.5%) compared to that in R-FMT group (5%, P = .04) and CM-FMT group (2.4%, P = .002). The mean change in IBS-SSS and IBS-QOL from baseline were not significantly different among the four groups or between the three FMT groups combined vs. placebo at week 10. In summary, antibiotic pretreatment significantly reduced bacterial engraftment after FMT in patients with IBS-D.

Frequency of Adverse Events in the Placebo Arms of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Adverse events (AEs) after placebo treatment are common in randomized clinical drug trials. Systematic evidence regarding these nocebo responses in vaccine trials is important for COVID-19 vaccination worldwide especially because concern about AEs is reported to be a reason for vaccination hesitancy. Objective: To compare the frequencies of AEs reported in the placebo groups of COVID-19 vaccine trials with those reported in the vaccine groups. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Medline (PubMed) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched systematically using medical subheading terms and free-text keywords for trials of COVID-19 vaccines published up to July 14, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines that investigated adults aged 16 years or older were selected if they assessed solicited AEs within 7 days of injection, included an inert placebo arm, and provided AE reports for both the vaccine and placebo groups separately. Full texts were reviewed for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 reviewers, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline and using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were based on random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the proportions of placebo recipients reporting overall, systemic, and local (injection-site) AEs as well as logarithmic odds ratios (ORs) to evaluate group differences. Outcomes were tested for significance using z tests with 95% CIs. Results: Twelve articles with AE reports for 45 380 participants (22 578 placebo recipients and 22 802 vaccine recipients) were analyzed. After the first dose, 35.2% (95% CI, 26.7%-43.7%) of placebo recipients experienced systemic AEs, with headache (19.3%; 95% CI, 13.6%-25.1%) and fatigue (16.7%; 95% CI, 9.8%-23.6%) being most common. After the second dose, 31.8% (95% CI, 28.7%-35.0%) of placebo recipients reported systemic AEs. The ratio between placebo and vaccine arms showed that nocebo responses accounted for 76.0% of systemic AEs after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose and for 51.8% after the second dose. Significantly more vaccine recipients reported AEs, but the group difference for systemic AEs was small after the first dose (OR, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.54 to -0.40; P < .001; standardized mean difference, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.22) and large after the second dose (OR, -1.36; 95% CI, -1.86 to -0.86; P < .001; standardized mean difference, -0.75; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.47). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, significantly more AEs were reported in vaccine groups compared with placebo groups, but the rates of reported AEs in the placebo arms were still substantial. Public vaccination programs should consider these high rates of AEs in placebo arms.

Patient-clinician brain concordance underlies causal dynamics in nonverbal communication and negative affective expressivity.

Patient-clinician concordance in behavior and brain activity has been proposed as a potential key mediator of mutual empathy and clinical rapport in the therapeutic encounter. However, the specific elements of patient-clinician communication that may support brain-to-brain concordance and therapeutic alliance are unknown. Here, we investigated how pain-related, directional facial communication between patients and clinicians is associated with brain-to-brain concordance. Patient-clinician dyads interacted in a pain-treatment context, during synchronous assessment of brain activity (fMRI hyperscanning) and online video transfer, enabling face-to-face social interaction. In-scanner videos were used for automated individual facial action unit (AU) time-series extraction. First, an interpretable machine-learning classifier of patients' facial expressions, from an independent fMRI experiment, significantly distinguished moderately painful leg pressure from innocuous pressure stimuli. Next, we estimated neural-network causality of patient-to-clinician directional information flow of facial expressions during clinician-initiated treatment of patients' evoked pain. We identified a leader-follower relationship in which patients predominantly led the facial communication while clinicians responded to patients' expressions. Finally, analyses of dynamic brain-to-brain concordance showed that patients' mid/posterior insular concordance with the clinicians' anterior insula cortex, a region identified in previously published data from this study1, was associated with therapeutic alliance, and self-reported and objective (patient-to-clinician-directed causal influence) markers of negative-affect expressivity. These results suggest a role of patient-clinician concordance of the insula, a social-mirroring and salience-processing brain node, in mediating directional dynamics of pain-directed facial communication during therapeutic encounters.

Improving Medication Tolerance: A Pilot Study in Disorders of Gut-brain Interaction Treated With Tricyclic Antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES: Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are commonly used to treat disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). However, these medications are often associated with side effects that lead to early treatment discontinuation. Research in other chronic medical conditions suggests that many TCA side effects may be caused by nocebo (negative placebo) effects. The current study tests a brief, verbal intervention aimed at improving tolerance of TCAs in DGBI by providing education about nocebo effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pilot randomized controlled trial was performed in a tertiary care gastroenterology clinic. Participants with DGBI were randomized "standard information," describing the benefits and risks of TCAs, or "augmented information," which included an additional <30-second education about nocebo effects. Two weeks after their visit, participants were emailed a survey evaluating the number and bothersomeness of side effects, adequate relief, global improvement, and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were randomized and 22 responded to the survey. The average age was 40% and 59% were women. Although not statistically significant, the augmented group attributed nominally fewer symptoms to TCAs than the standard group, with a medium effect size (1.5 vs. 4.2, effect size d=0.56, P=0.212) and reported being significantly less bothered by those symptoms (13.4 vs. 38.1, P=0.037). A nominally larger percentage of the augmented group reported adequate relief of symptoms after 2 weeks of treatment compared with the standard group (55% vs. 27%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates that a brief (≈30 s) clinical intervention addressing nocebo effects may improve tolerance of TCAs. These findings provide support for future, fully powered studies to evaluate the impact of framing on clinical outcomes, especially in chronic conditions.

Peppermint Oil Treatment for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Peppermint oil is often used to treat irritable bowel syndrome (IBS); however, the overall quality of previous studies is low, and findings have been heterogeneous. This study aimed to compare the effects of peppermint oil vs placebo in relieving IBS symptoms. METHODS: In a 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at a single academic center in the United States, individuals diagnosed with IBS (Rome IV criteria), with moderate to severe symptoms based on the IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS score ≥175), were randomized to enteric-coated peppermint oil 180 mg 3 times daily vs placebo in a 1:2 ratio. The primary outcome was mean change in IBS-SSS scores from baseline to 6-week endpoint. RESULTS: A modified intent-to-treat analysis revealed that there were substantial mean improvements from baseline to 6-week endpoint in the main outcome measure (IBS-SSS) for both peppermint oil (90.8, SD = 75.3) and placebo (100.3, SD = 99.6). Although the peppermint oil group reported numerically lower improvement than the placebo group, the effect size was small (d = -0.11), and the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.97). Similarly, both groups reported substantial improvements on the secondary endpoints; but again, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups on any of the secondary measures. Sensitivity analyses using multiple imputation to replace missing data produced similar results and revealed no significant differences between peppermint oil and placebo on any outcome measure. DISCUSSION: Peppermint oil and placebo both showed clinically meaningful improvement in IBS symptoms. However, there were no significant differences between the groups. Further large, rigorous trials are needed to evaluate the role of peppermint oil for the treatment of IBS.

Open-label placebo vs double-blind placebo for irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: It is commonly believed that blinding to treatment assignment is necessary for placebos to have an effect. However, placebos administered without concealment (ie, open-label placebos [OLPs]) have recently been shown to be effective in some conditions. This study had 2 objectives: first, to determine whether OLP treatment is superior to no-pill control (NPC) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and, second, to compare the efficacy of OLP against double-blind placebo (DBP). In a 6-week, 3-arm, randomized clinical trial, participants were randomized in equal proportions to 3 arms: OLP, DBP, or NPC. Two hundred sixty-two adults (72.9% women), with a mean age of 42.0 (SD = 18.1) years, participated in the primary study. The mean improvement on the IBS Severity Scoring System from baseline to the 6-week end point was significantly greater in OLP compared with that in NPC (90.6 vs 52.3, P = 0.038). Open-label placebo and DBP did not differ significantly on IBS Severity Scoring System improvement (100.3 vs 90.6, P = 0.485). Standardized effect sizes were moderate for OLP vs NPC (d = 0.43) and small for OLP vs DBP (d = 0.10). Participants treated with OLP reported clinically meaningful improvements in IBS symptoms that were significantly greater than those on NPC. Open-label placebo and DBP had similar effects that did not differ significantly, suggesting that blinding may not be necessary for placebos to be effective and that OLP could play a role in the management of patients with refractory IBS.

What Should Clinicians Tell Patients about Placebo and Nocebo Effects? Practical Considerations Based on Expert Consensus.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments. OBJECTIVE: There is an increasing need for up-to-date recommendations on how to inform patients about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice and train clinicians how to disclose this information. METHODS: Based on previous clinical recommendations concerning placebo and nocebo effects, a 3-step, invitation-only Delphi study was conducted among an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The study consisted of open- and closed-ended survey questions followed by a final expert meeting. The surveys were subdivided into 3 parts: (1) informing patients about placebo effects, (2) informing patients about nocebo effects, and (3) training clinicians how to communicate this information to the patients. RESULTS: There was consensus that communicating general information about placebo and nocebo effects to patients (e.g., explaining their role in treatment) could be beneficial, but that such information needs to be adjusted to match the specific clinical context (e.g., condition and treatment). Experts also agreed that training clinicians to communicate about placebo and nocebo effects should be a regular and integrated part of medical education that makes use of multiple formats, including face-to-face and online modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The current 3-step Delphi study provides consensus-based recommendations and practical considerations for disclosures about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice. Future research is needed on how to optimally tailor information to specific clinical conditions and patients' needs, and on developing standardized disclosure training modules for clinicians.

Dynamic brain-to-brain concordance and behavioral mirroring as a mechanism of the patient-clinician interaction.

The patient-clinician interaction can powerfully shape treatment outcomes such as pain but is often considered an intangible "art of medicine" and has largely eluded scientific inquiry. Although brain correlates of social processes such as empathy and theory of mind have been studied using single-subject designs, specific behavioral and neural mechanisms underpinning the patient-clinician interaction are unknown. Using a two-person interactive design, we simultaneously recorded functional magnetic resonance imaging (hyperscanning) in patient-clinician dyads, who interacted via live video, while clinicians treated evoked pain in patients with chronic pain. Our results show that patient analgesia is mediated by patient-clinician nonverbal behavioral mirroring and brain-to-brain concordance in circuitry implicated in theory of mind and social mirroring. Dyad-based analyses showed extensive dynamic coupling of these brain nodes with the partners' brain activity, yet only in dyads with pre-established clinical rapport. These findings introduce a putatively key brain-behavioral mechanism for therapeutic alliance and psychosocial analgesia.

European Headache Federation recommendations for placebo and nocebo terminology.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Despite recent publications, practitioners remain unfamiliar with the current terminology related to the placebo and nocebo phenomena observed in clinical trials and practice, nor with the factors that modulate them. To cover the gap, the European Headache Federation appointed a panel of experts to clarify the terms associated with the use of placebo in clinical trials. METHODS: The working group identified relevant questions and agreed upon recommendations. Because no data were required to answer the questions, the GRADE approach was not applicable, and thus only expert opinion was provided according to an amended Delphi method. The initial 12 topics for discussion were revised in the opinion of the majority of the panelists, and after a total of 6 rounds of negotiations, the final agreement is presented. RESULTS/RECOMMENDATIONS: Two primary and mechanism-based recommendations are provided for the results of clinical trials: [1] to distinguish the placebo or nocebo response from the placebo or nocebo effect; and [2] for any favorable outcome observed after placebo administration, the term "placebo response" should be used, and for any unfavorable outcome recorded after placebo administration, the term "nocebo response" should be used (12 out of 17 panelists agreed, 70.6% agreement). The placebo or nocebo responses are attributed to a set of factors including those that are related to the medical condition (e.g. natural history, random comorbidities, etc.), along with idiosyncratic ones, in which the placebo or nocebo effects are attributed to idiosyncratic, or nonspecific mechanisms, exclusively (e.g. expectation, conditioning, observational learning etc.). To help investigators and practitioners, the panel summarized a list of environmental factors and idiosyncratic dynamics modulating placebo and nocebo effects. Some of them are modifiable, and investigators or physicians need to know about them in order to modify these factors appropriately to improve treatment. One secondary recommendation addresses the use of the terms "placebo" and "nocebo" ("placebos" and "nocebos" in plural), which refer to the triggers of the placebo/nocebo effects or responses, respectively, and which are inert agents or interventions that should not be confused with the placebo/nocebo responses or effects themselves (all panelists agreed, 100% agreement). CONCLUSION: The working group recommends distinguishing the term response from effect to describe health changes from before to after placebo application and to distinguish the terms placebo(s) or nocebo(s) from the health consequences that they cause (placebo/nocebo responses or effects).

Attitudes About Informed Consent: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of UK Psychotherapy Trainees.

Background: Ethical informed consent to psychotherapy has recently been the subject of in-depth analysis among healthcare ethicists. Objective: This study aimed to explore counseling and psychotherapy students' views and understanding about informed consent to psychological treatments. Methods: Two focus groups were conducted with a total of 10 students enrolled in a Masters course in counseling and psychotherapy at a British university. Questions concerned participants' understanding of informed consent including judgments about client capacity; the kinds of information that should be disclosed; how consent might be obtained; and their experiences of informed consent, both as a client and as a therapist. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Coding was conducted independently by three authors. Results: Comments were classified into three main themes: (1) the reasons and justifications for informed consent; (2) informed consent processes; and (3) the hidden ethics curriculum. Some trainees expressed significant doubts about the importance of informed consent. However, participants also identified the need to establish the clients' voluntariness and their right to be informed about confidentiality issues. In general, the format and processes pertaining to informed consent raised considerable questions and uncertainties. Participants were unsure about rules surrounding client capacity; expressed misgivings about describing treatment techniques; and strikingly, most trainees were skeptical about the clinical relevance of the evidence-base in psychotherapy. Finally, trainees' experiences as clients within obligatory psychotherapy sessions were suggestive of a "hidden ethics curriculum"-referring to the unintended transmission of norms and practices within training that undermine the explicit guidance expressed in formal professional ethics codes. Some students felt coerced into therapy, and some reported not undergoing informed consent processes. Reflecting on work placements, trainees expressed mixed views, with some unclear about who was responsible for informed consent. Conclusions: This qualitative study presents timely information on psychotherapy students' views about informed consent to psychotherapy. Major gaps in students' ethical, conceptual, and procedural knowledge were identified, and comments suggested the influence of a hidden curriculum in shaping norms of practice. Implications: This exploratory study raises important questions about the preparedness of psychotherapy students to fulfill their ethical obligations.

Lumping and Splitting: Toward a Taxonomy of Placebo and Related Effects.

The placebo effect is closely related to many other constructs, including most prominently, conditioning and expectancy, but also natural history, regression to the mean, priming, mindset, context effects, the meaning response, specific and non-specific clinical effects, placebo-related effects, the patient-clinician relationship, and the common factors in psychotherapy. How are these various terms related to one another? To what degree do they overlap, and to what degree do they diverge? To form a better theoretical understanding of these constructs and to foster improved empirical research, is it better to lump these terms together in some fashion? Or will progress best be served by maintaining the splits between the constructs? Or would it perhaps be most effective to employ some mixture of lumping and splitting? I will address these and related questions with two major goals: (1) to delineate and clarify the relationship between these various terms and (2) to suggest some possible re-alignments in the way in which we conceptualize the relationships among these constructs that might prove useful in fostering research on placebo and related effects. In addition, clarifying the interconnections between the placebo effect and other related terms has the potential to spark innovative cross-fertilizations between related areas of research.

Implications of Placebo and Nocebo Effects for Clinical Practice: Expert Consensus.

BACKGROUND: Placebo and nocebo effects occur in clinical or laboratory medical contexts after administration of an inert treatment or as part of active treatments and are due to psychobiological mechanisms such as expectancies of the patient. Placebo and nocebo studies have evolved from predominantly methodological research into a far-reaching interdisciplinary field that is unravelling the neurobiological, behavioural and clinical underpinnings of these phenomena in a broad variety of medical conditions. As a consequence, there is an increasing demand from health professionals to develop expert recommendations about evidence-based and ethical use of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice. METHODS: A survey and interdisciplinary expert meeting by invitation was organized as part of the 1st Society for Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (SIPS) conference in 2017. Twenty-nine internationally recognized placebo researchers participated. RESULTS: There was consensus that maximizing placebo effects and minimizing nocebo effects should lead to better treatment outcomes with fewer side effects. Experts particularly agreed on the importance of informing patients about placebo and nocebo effects and training health professionals in patient-clinician communication to maximize placebo and minimize nocebo effects. CONCLUSIONS: The current paper forms a first step towards developing evidence-based and ethical recommendations about the implications of placebo and nocebo research for medical practice, based on the current state of evidence and the consensus of experts. Future research might focus on how to implement these recommendations, including how to optimize conditions for educating patients about placebo and nocebo effects and providing training for the implementation in clinical practice.

A role for the CXCR4-CXCL12 axis in the little skate, Leucoraja erinacea.

The interaction between C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4) and its cognate ligand C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 12 (CXCL12) plays a critical role in regulating hematopoietic stem cell activation and subsequent cellular mobilization. Extensive studies of these genes have been conducted in mammals, but much less is known about the expression and function of CXCR4 and CXCL12 in non-mammalian vertebrates. In the present study, we identify simultaneous expression of CXCR4 and CXCL12 orthologs in the epigonal organ (the primary hematopoietic tissue) of the little skate, Leucoraja erinacea. Genetic and phylogenetic analyses were functionally supported by significant mobilization of leukocytes following administration of Plerixafor, a CXCR4 antagonist and clinically important drug. Our results provide evidence that, as in humans, Plerixafor disrupts CXCR4/CXCL12 binding in the little skate, facilitating release of leukocytes into the bloodstream. Our study illustrates the value of the little skate as a model organism, particularly in studies of hematopoiesis and potentially for preclinical research on hematological and vascular disorders.

Does Disclosure About the Common Factors Affect Laypersons' Opinions About How Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy Works?

Background: Written and online information about cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) prioritizes the role of specific techniques (e.g., cognitive restructuring) and typically omits discussion of "common factors" (e.g., the working alliance, or therapist empathy). However, according to extensive psychotherapy process research the common factors may be important mediators of client improvement. Objectives: This study aimed to assess lay opinions about the role of specific and common factors in CBT for depression. We also aimed to determine how different client disclosure processes might affect lay opinions about the relative importance of specific and common factors in CBT. Methods: We conducted a web-based experiment involving a sample of US participants who had never undergone psychotherapy. All participants were presented with similar vignettes describing an individual suffering from depression whose doctor recommends CBT. Participants were randomized to read one of six vignettes created in a 2 × 3 factorial design that crossed client gender with type of informed consent (Standard CBT Disclosure vs. Common Factors and CBT Disclosure vs. No Disclosure). Results: Disclosure type had a significant effect on participants' ratings of Common and Specific factors in psychotherapy. As compared to the CBT disclosure, participants allocated to the Common Factors disclosure rated Empathy and Positive Regard as significantly more important to treatment outcome, and rated the Specific factors of CBT as significantly less important to outcome. There were no significant differences between No Disclosure and Standard CBT Disclosure, and these participants rated Specific factors of CBT and the Working Alliance as more important components in treatment, and Empathy and Positive Regard as less important. Conclusions: The content of information disclosures influences lay opinions about the importance of specific and common factors in CBT. Further research should investigate ethically acceptable disclosures to CBT and other forms of psychotherapy, including whether disclosure practices affect treatment outcome.