When discussing the placebo effect in a blind/double blind study and how it provides a neutral control for researchers to determine how well their drug performs, we focus on the assumptions that patients are making and how that psychological response compares to the biological response of those given the real treatment. Further, it eliminates observer and subject bias, which prevents erroneous data interpretation or exclusion and premeditated effects, respectively.
The Placebo Effect, however, is based on the positive response of a patient's optimistic feelings towards the study. That is, they experience these psychologically driven improvements because they expect to feel better upon taking the treatment. But there also exists a negative counterpart: the Nocebo Effect. This effect involves patients' negative perceptions towards the treatment they are being given; they assume their condition will not improve or worsen. This respectively causes a negative response to the treatment, where their symptoms can worsen, or they experience greatly pronounced side effects. Using these phenomena, it will give researchers a good idea of who should and who should not take the medication, as well as how they can tailor their treatment for the most patients possible.
Here are my questions for you guys:
- Which of these effects do you guys find more beneficial to the study, and why?
- Would you include results accounting for both the placebo and nocebo effects, or exclude one or the other to emphasize specific types of hypotheses and their outcomes?
- If possible, how would you optimize the study if you were to exclude one, or use neither, and guarantee no observer/subject bias?
