The power of nonspecific effects in healing: Implications for psychosocial and biological treatments

We evaluate the hypothesis that the power of nonspecific effects may account for as much as two thirds of successful treatment outcomes when both the healer and the patient believe in the efficacy of a treatment. Five medical and surgical treatments, once considered to be efficacious by their proponents but no longer considered effective based upon later controlled trials, were selected according to strict inclusion criteria. A search of the English literature was conducted for all studies published for each treatment area. The results of these studies were categorized, where possible, into excellent, good, and poor outcomes. For these five treatments combined, 40 % excellent, 30 % good, and 30 % poor results were reported by proponents. We conclude that, under conditions of heightened expectations, the power of nonspecific effects far exceeds that commonly reported in the literature. The implications of these results in evaluating the relative efficacy of biological and psychosocial treatments is discussed.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/31080/1/0000757.pd

A Minimal Intervention to Promote Smoke-Free Homes among 2-1-1 Callers: North Carolina Randomized Effectiveness Trial

This study examined the extent to which delivery of the minimal Smoke-Free Homes intervention by trained 2-1-1 information and referral specialists had an effect on the adoption of home smoking bans in low-income households. A randomized controlled trial was conducted among 2-1-1 callers (n = 500) assigned to control or intervention conditions. 2-1-1 information and referral specialists collected baseline data and delivered the intervention consisting of 3 mailings and 1 coaching call; university-based data collectors conducted follow-up interviews at 3 and 6 months post-baseline. Data were collected from June 2013 through July 2014. Participants were mostly female (87.2%), African American (61.4%), and smokers (76.6%). Participants assigned to the intervention condition were more likely than controls to report a full ban on smoking in the home at both 3- (38.1% vs 19.3%, p = < .001) and 6-month follow-up (43.2% vs 33.2%, p = .02). The longitudinal intent-to-treat analysis showed a significant intervention effect over time (OR = 1.31, p = .001), i.e. OR = 1.72 at 6 months. This study replicates prior findings showing the effectiveness of the minimal intervention to promote smoke-free homes in low-income households, and extends those findings by demonstrating they can be achieved when 2-1-1 information and referral specialists deliver the intervention. Findings offer support for this intervention as a generalizable and scalable model for reducing secondhand smoke exposure in homes

Minimal intervention delivered by 2-1-1 information and referral specialists promotes smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers: a Texas generalisation trial

Replication of intervention research is reported infrequently, limiting what we know about external validity and generalisability. The Smoke Free Homes Program, a minimal intervention, increased home smoking bans by United Way 2-1-1 callers in randomised controlled trials in Atlanta, Georgia and North Carolina

A Minimal Intervention to Promote Smoke-Free Homes among 2-1-1 Callers: North Carolina Randomized Effectiveness Trial.

This study examined the extent to which delivery of the minimal Smoke-Free Homes intervention by trained 2-1-1 information and referral specialists had an effect on the adoption of home smoking bans in low-income households. A randomized controlled trial was conducted among 2-1-1 callers (n = 500) assigned to control or intervention conditions. 2-1-1 information and referral specialists collected baseline data and delivered the intervention consisting of 3 mailings and 1 coaching call; university-based data collectors conducted follow-up interviews at 3 and 6 months post-baseline. Data were collected from June 2013 through July 2014. Participants were mostly female (87.2%), African American (61.4%), and smokers (76.6%). Participants assigned to the intervention condition were more likely than controls to report a full ban on smoking in the home at both 3- (38.1% vs 19.3%, p = < .001) and 6-month follow-up (43.2% vs 33.2%, p = .02). The longitudinal intent-to-treat analysis showed a significant intervention effect over time (OR = 1.31, p = .001), i.e. OR = 1.72 at 6 months. This study replicates prior findings showing the effectiveness of the minimal intervention to promote smoke-free homes in low-income households, and extends those findings by demonstrating they can be achieved when 2-1-1 information and referral specialists deliver the intervention. Findings offer support for this intervention as a generalizable and scalable model for reducing secondhand smoke exposure in homes

Impact of the Intervention on Primary and Secondary Outcomes at 3 and 6 Months Post Baseline: Intervention to Promote Smoke-Free Homes Among 2-1-1 Callers, North Carolina, 2013.

<p>Impact of the Intervention on Primary and Secondary Outcomes at 3 and 6 Months Post Baseline: Intervention to Promote Smoke-Free Homes Among 2-1-1 Callers, North Carolina, 2013.</p

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials flow diagram for randomized effectiveness trial: minimal intervention to promote smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers, North Carolina, 2013.

<p>Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials flow diagram for randomized effectiveness trial: minimal intervention to promote smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers, North Carolina, 2013.</p