Revista CEFAC
https://revistacefac.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/1982-0216/20222443022
Revista CEFAC
Artigos de Revisão

Nocebo effect in health communication: how to minimize it?

Efeito nocebo na comunicação em saúde: como minimizá-lo?

Bruna Alves Rodrigues; Luciana Micaelly Costa Pessoa Silva; Hiênio Ítalo da Silva Lucena; Edna Pereira Gomes de Morais; Ana Carolina Rocha; Giorvan Anderson dos Santos Alves; Silvia Damasceno Benevides

Downloads: 0
Views: 146

Abstract

Purpose: to describe the strategies used to minimize the nocebo effect in health communication.

Methods: an integrative review of the literature. The keywords “nocebo effect” and “health communication” and their combinations were used in English, Portuguese, and Spanish to search publications from 2011 to 2021 in MEDLINE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science/ISI. The following research question was used: “Which strategies have been used to minimize the nocebo effect in health communication?”.

Literature Review: altogether, 77 articles were found, although only six met the inclusion criteria and comprised the review sample. Their year of publication ranged from 2015 to 2021. Positive framing, assertive communication, and contextual factors were the strategies used to minimize the nocebo effect.

Conclusion
: the strategies used to minimize the nocebo effect were contextual factors, motivational talk, positive framing, assertive communication, and empathetic communication. These communication techniques are seemingly effective, though still little known by health professionals. This knowledge is important as it helps develop communicative skills aiming at humanized patient care.

Keywords

Nocebo Effect, Health Communication, Health Strategies

Resumo

Objetivo: descrever as estratégias para minimizar o efeito nocebo na comunicação em saúde.

Métodos: trata-se de uma revisão integrativa da literatura. Os descritores utilizados foram: “Efeito nocebo” e “comunicação em saúde”, em inglês, português e espanhol e suas combinações, no período de 2011 a 2021, nas bases de dados da Medline, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Cochrane Library, Embase e Web of Science/ISI. A pergunta de investigação para esse estudo foi: Quais as estratégias utilizadas para minimizar o efeito nocebo na comunicação em saúde?

Revisão da Literatura: foram encontrados 77 artigos. Apenas seis preencheram os critérios de inclusão e compuseram a amostra da revisão. Os anos de publicação dos artigos variaram entre 2015 e 2021. As estratégias definidas para minimizar o efeito nocebo foram: enquadramento positivo, comunicação assertiva e utilização de fatores contextuais.

Conclusão: as estratégias encontradas para minimizar o efeito nocebo foram fatores contextuais, conversa motivacional, enquadramento positivo, comunicação assertiva e comunicação empática. Essas técnicas de comunicação parecem ser efetivas, mas ainda são pouco conhecidas pelos profissionais em saúde. Esse conhecimento se faz importante, pois auxilia no desenvolvimento de habilidades comunicativas que visam à humanização do cuidado ao paciente.

Palavras-chave

Efeito Nocebo; Comunicação em Saúde; Estratégias de Saúde

Referências

1. Finniss DG, Kaptchuk TJ, Miller F, Benedetti F. Biological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo effects. Lancet. 2010;375(9715):686-95.

2. Parente RCM, de Oliveira MAP, Celeste RK. Qual é o valor do placebo em pesquisas clínicas? Femina. 2011;39(4):178.

3. Colloca L, Benedetti F. Placebos and painkillers: is mind as real as matter? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6(7):545-52.

4. Rodriguez-Raecke R, Doganci B, Breimhorst M, Stankewitz A, Büchel C, Birklein F et al. Insular cortex activity is associated with effects of negative expectation on nociceptive long-term habituation. J Neurosci. 2010;30(34):1136-8.

5. Fagundes FRC, Reis FJ, Cabral CMN. Nocebo and pain: adverse effects of excessive information. Rev. dor. 2016;17(3):157-8.

6. Colloca L, Finniss D. Nocebo effects, patient-clinician communication, and therapeutic outcomes. JAMA. 2012;307(6):567-8.

7. Darlow B, Dowell A, Baxter GD, Mathieson F, Perry M, Dean S. The enduring impact of what clinicians say to people with low back pain. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(6):527-34.

8. Souza MT de, Silva MD da, Carvalho R de. Integrative review: what is it? How to do it? Einstein. 2010;8(1):102-6.

9. Teixeira JAC. Comunicação em saúde: relação técnicos de saúde-utentes. Análise Psicológica. 2004;22(3):615-20.

10. Bisconti M, Venturin D, Bianco A, Capurso V, Giovannico G. Understanding contextual factors effects and their implications for italian physiotherapists: findings from a national cross-sectional study. Healthcare. 2021;9(6):689.

11. Rossettini G, Palese A, Geri T, Mirandola M, Tortella F, Testa M. The knowledge of contextual factors as triggers of placebo and nocebo effects in patients with musculoskeletal pain: findings from a national survey. Front Psychiatr. 2019;10(10):478.

12. Barnes K, Faasse K, Geers AL, Helfer SG, Sharpe L, Colloca L et al. Can positive framing reduce nocebo side effects? Current evidence and recommendation for future research. Front. Pharmacol. 2019;10(10):167.

13. Petit J, Antignac M, Poilverd RM, Baratto R, Darthout S, Desouches S et al. Multidisciplinary team intervention to reduce the nocebo effect when switching from the originator infliximab to a biosimilar. RMD Open. 2021;7(1):e001396.

14. D'Amico F, Solitano V, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Danese S. Nocebo effect and biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases: what's new and what's next? Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2021;21(1):47-55.

15. Devlin EJ, Whitford HS, Denson LA. The impact of valence framing on response expectancies of side effects and subsequent experiences: a randomised controlled trial. Psychology & Health. 2019;34(11):1358-77.

16. Arnold MH, Finniss DG, Kerridge I. Medicine's inconvenient truth: the placebo and nocebo effect. Intern Med J. 2014;44(4):398-405.

17. Vijayan R, Scott G, Brownlie W, Male P, Chin K. How sharp is a "sharp scratch"? A mixed methods study of verbal warnings issued before venipuncture. Pain Practice. 2015;15(2):132-9.

18. Evers AW, Colloca L, Blease C, Annoni M, Atlas LY, Benedetti F et al. Implications of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice: expert consensus. Psychother Psychosom. 2018;87(4):204-10.

19. Van Vliet LM, Francke AL, Meijers MC, Westendorp J, Hoffstädt H, Evers AW et al. The use of expectancy and empathy when communicating with patients with advanced breast cancer: an observational study of clinician-patient consultations. Front Psychiatr. 2019;10:464.

20. Hansen E, Zech N. Nocebo effects and negative suggestions in daily clinical practice-forms, impact and approaches to avoid them. Front. Pharmacol. [journal on the internet]. 2019 [accessed 2019 dez 12];10. Availabe at: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6381056/
 


Submetido em:
08/06/2022

Aceito em:
05/09/2022

6670cd61a953951deb40a342 cefac Articles

Revista CEFAC

Share this page
Page Sections