56 research outputs found

    Do patients prefer optimistic or cautious psychiatrists? An experimental study with new and long-term patients

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background Patients seeking treatment may be assumed to prefer a psychiatrist who suggests a new treatment with confidence and optimism. Yet, this might not apply uniformly to all patients. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that new patients prefer psychiatrists who present treatments optimistically, whilst patients with longer-term experience of mental health care may rather prefer more cautious psychiatrists. Methods In an experimental study, we produced video-clips of four psychiatrists, each suggesting a pharmacological and a psychological treatment once with optimism and once with caution. 100 \u2018new\u2019 patients with less than 3\ua0months experience of mental health care and 100 \u2018long-term\u2019 patients with more than one year of experience were shown a random selection of one video-clip from each psychiatrist, always including an optimistic and a cautious suggestion of each treatment. Patients rated their preferences for psychiatrists on Likert type scales. Differences in subgroups with different age (18\u201340 vs. 41\u201365 years), gender, school leaving age (\u226416 vs. >16\ua0years), and diagnosis (ICD 10\ua0F2 vs. others) were explored. Results New patients preferred more optimistic treatment suggestions, whilst there was no preference among long-term patients. The interaction effect between preference for treatment presentations and experience of patients was significant (interaction p -value\u2009=\u20090.003). Findings in subgroups were similar. Conclusion In line with the hypothesis, psychiatrists should suggest treatments with optimism to patients with little experience of mental health care. However, this rule does not apply to longer-term patients, who may have experienced treatment failures in the past

    Involvement of NMDA receptor complex in the anxiolytic-like effects of chlordiazepoxide in mice

    Get PDF
    In the present study, we demonstrated that low, ineffective doses of N-methyl-d-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor antagonists [competitive NMDA antagonist, CGP 37849, at 0.312 mg/kg intraperitoneally (i.p.), antagonist of the glycineB sites, L-701,324, at 2 mg/kg i.p., partial agonist of glycineB sites, d-cycloserine, at 2.5 mg/kg i.p.] administered jointly with an ineffective dose of the benzodiazepine, chlordiazepoxide (CDP, 2.5 mg/kg i.p.), significantly increased the percentage of time spent in the open arms of the elevated plus-maze (index of anxiolytic effect). Furthermore, CDP-induced anxiolytic-like activity (5 mg/kg i.p.) was antagonized by NMDA (75 mg/kg i.p.) and by an agonist of glycineB sites of the NMDA receptor complex, d-serine [100 nmol/mouse intracerebroventricularly (i.c.v.)]. The present study showed a positive interaction between γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glutamate neurotransmission in the anxiolytic-like activity in the elevated plus-maze test in mice and this activity seems to particularly involve the NMDA receptors

    Placebo and nocebo effects in the neurological practice

    Full text link
    Knowledge of placebo and nocebo effects is essential to identify their influence on the results in clinical practice and clinical trials, and thereby properly interpret their results. It is known that the gold standard of clinical trials research is the double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical study. The objective of this review is to distinguish specific from non-specific effects, so that the presence of positive effects in the group that received placebo (placebo effect) and the presence of adverse effects in the group receiving placebo (nocebo effect) lead to confounding in interpreting the results. Placebo and nocebo effects have been considered in neurological diseases such as depression, pain, headache, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy. As placebo and nocebo effects are also present in clinical practice, the purpose of this review is to draw attention to their influence on neurological practice, calling attention to the development of measures that can minimize them
    corecore