Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Mar 6:10:167.
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00167. eCollection 2019.

Can Positive Framing Reduce Nocebo Side Effects? Current Evidence and Recommendation for Future Research

Affiliations
Review

Can Positive Framing Reduce Nocebo Side Effects? Current Evidence and Recommendation for Future Research

Kirsten Barnes et al. Front Pharmacol. .

Abstract

Although critical for informed consent, side effect warnings can contribute directly to poorer patient outcomes because they often induce negative expectations that trigger nocebo side effects. Communication strategies that reduce the development of nocebo side effects whilst maintaining informed consent are therefore of considerable interest. We reviewed theoretical and empirical evidence for the use of framing strategies to achieve this. Framing refers to the way in which information about the likelihood or significance of side effects is presented (e.g., negative frame: 30% will experience headache vs. positive frame: 70% will not experience headache), with the rationale that positively framing such information could diminish nocebo side effects. Relatively few empirical studies (k = 6) have tested whether framing strategies can reduce nocebo side effects. Of these, four used attribute framing and two message framing. All but one of the studies found a significant framing effect on at least one aspect of side effects (e.g., experience, attribution, threat), suggesting that framing is a promising strategy for reducing nocebo effects. However, our review also revealed some important open questions regarding these types of framing effects, including, the best method of communicating side effects (written, oral, pictorial), optimal statistical presentation (e.g., frequencies vs. percentages), whether framing affects perceived absolute risk of side effects, and what psychological mechanisms underlie framing effects. Future research that addresses these open questions will be vital for understanding the circumstances in which framing are most likely to be effective.

Keywords: adverse health outcomes; attribute framing; expectancies; framing; nocebo; placebo; side effects; verbal suggestion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Search terms and PRISMA flow-chart (from: Moher et al., 2009) outlining the procedure used to identify studies included in review.

References

    1. Baguley T. (2009). Standardized or simple effect size: what should be reported? Br. J. Psychol. 100 603–617. 10.1348/000712608x377117 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barsky A. J., Saintfort R., Rogers M. P., Borus J. F. (2002). Nonspecific medication side effects and the nocebo phenomenon. JAMA 287 622–627. 10.1001/jama.287.5.622 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benedetti F., Amanzio M., Vighetti S., Asteggiano G. (2006). The biochemical and neuroendocrine bases of the hyperalgesic nocebo effect. J. Neurosci. 26 12014–12022. 10.1523/jneurosci.2947-06.2006 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berry D. C., Raynor D. K., Knapp P. (2003). Communicating risk of medication side effects: an empirical evaluation of EU recommended terminology. Psychol. Health Med. 8 251–263. 10.1080/1354850031000135704 - DOI
    1. Caplandies F. C., Colagiuri B., Helfer S. G., Geers A. L. (2017). Effect type but not attribute framing alters nocebo headaches in an experimental paradigm. Psychol. Conscious. 4 259–273. 10.1037/cns0000130 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources