What is spiritual care? Professional perspectives on the concept of spiritual care identified through group concept mapping.

OBJECTIVES: The overall study aim was to synthesise understandings and experiences regarding the concept of spiritual care (SC). More specifically, to identify, organise and prioritise experiences with the way SC is conceived and practised by professionals in research and the clinic. DESIGN: Group concept mapping (GCM). SETTING: The study was conducted within a university setting in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers, students and clinicians working with SC on a daily basis in the clinic and/or through research participated in brainstorming (n=15), sorting (n=15), rating and validation (n=13). RESULTS: Applying GCM, ideas were identified, organised and prioritised online. A total of 192 unique ideas of SC were identified and organised into six clusters. The results were discussed and interpreted at a validation meeting. Based on input from the validation meeting a conceptual model was developed. The model highlights three overall themes: (1) 'SC as an integral but overlooked aspect of healthcare' containing the two clusters SC as a part of healthcare and perceived significance; (2) 'delivering SC' containing the three clusters quality in attitude and action, relationship and help and support, and finally (3) 'the role of spirituality' containing a single cluster. CONCLUSION: Because spirituality is predominantly seen as a fundamental aspect of each individual human being, particularly important during suffering, SC should be an integral aspect of healthcare, although it is challenging to handle. SC involves paying attention to patients' values and beliefs, requires adequate skills and is realised in a relationship between healthcare professional and patient founded on trust and confidence.

Putting the 'Art' Into the 'Art of Medicine': The Under-Explored Role of Artifacts in Placebo Studies.

Research in social psychology demonstrates that physical environmental factors - or "artifacts" such as provider clothing and office décor - can influence health outcomes. However, the role of artifacts in augmenting or diminishing health outcomes is under-explored in the burgeoning discipline of placebo studies. In this paper, we argue that a careful consideration of artifacts may carry significant potential in informing how placebo effects can be maximized, and nocebo effects minimized in clinical settings. We discuss the potential mechanisms, including classical conditioning, response expectancy, and mindsets, by which artifacts might enhance or diminish these effects. Next, we propose testable hypotheses to investigate how placebo and nocebo effects might be elicited by artifacts in care settings, and conclude by providing innovative research designs to advance this novel research agendum.

Primary care providers' use of and attitudes towards placebos: An exploratory focus group study with US physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs). DESIGN: Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded. METHODS: Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach. RESULTS: Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice. CONCLUSIONS: A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential. Statement of contribution What is already known? Many physicians report prescribing drugs for the purposes of eliciting a placebo effect. Initial evidence for the efficacy of open-label placebos is promising. What does this study add? A more nuanced description of the circumstances under which primary care physicians report placebo prescribing. A qualitative account of physician attitudes about using open-label placebos in clinical practice.