Evidencing general acceptability of open-label placebo use for tackling overtreatment in primary care: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Overtreatment poses a challenge to healthcare systems due to harmful consequences of avoidable side-effects and costs. This study presents the first account for examining the feasibility of placebo use for reducing overtreatment in primary care, including whether public attitudes support the use of different placebo types in place of inappropriate prescriptions of antibiotics, antidepressants, or analgesics. METHODS: We used a multi-study, mixed-methods design, including patient and public (PPI) consultations, focus groups (Study 1) and two pre-registered online experiments (Studies 2 and 3). RESULTS: Study 1 (N = 16) explored everyday conceptions and practicalities of potential placebo use in the context of respiratory infections. Findings highlighted the importance of trusting doctor-patient relationships and safety-netting. Study 2 employed a randomised experiment with a representative UK sample (N = 980), investigating attitudes towards 5 different treatment options for respiratory infections: (1) blinded + pure placebo, (2) open-label + pure placebo, (3) open-label + impure placebo, (4) antibiotic treatment, and (5) no treatment. Study 2 also examined how attitudes varied based on wording and individual differences. Findings indicated general support (ηp2 = .149, large effect size) for replacing inappropriate antibiotics with open-label + impure placebos, although personal placebo acceptability was lower. Also, older people, individuals suffering from chronic illness or those showing higher levels of health anxiety appeared less amenable to placebo use. Study 3 (N = 1177) compared attitudes towards treatment options across three clinical scenarios: respiratory infection, depression and pain. Findings suggested significant differences in the acceptability of placebo options based on the clinical context. In the infection scenario, options for open-label + pure placebos, open-label + impure placebos and no treatment were rated significantly more acceptable (ηp2 = .116, medium effect size) compared to the depression and pain scenarios. Again, general support for placebos was higher than placebo acceptability for personal use. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from PPI and three studies indicate general support for combatting overprescribing in primary care through clinical placebo use. This is an indicator for wider UK public support for a novel, behavioural strategy to target a long-standing healthcare challenge. General acceptability appears to be highest for the use of open-label + impure placebos in the context of antibiotic overprescribing.

Awareness of social care needs in people with epilepsy and intellectual disability.

BACKGROUND: Nearly a quarter of people with intellectual disability (ID) have epilepsy with large numbers experiencing drug-resistant epilepsy, and premature mortality. To mitigate epilepsy risks the environment and social care needs, particularly in professional care settings, need to be met. PURPOSE: To compare professional care groups as regards their subjective confidence and perceived responsibility when managing the need of people with ID and epilepsy. METHOD: A multi-agency expert panel developed a questionnaire with embedded case vignettes with quantitative and qualitative elements to understand training and confidence in the health and social determinants of people with ID and epilepsy. The cross-sectional survey was disseminated amongst health and social care professionals working with people with ID in the UK using an exponential non-discriminative snow-balling methodology. Group comparisons were undertaken using suitable statistical tests including Fisher's exact, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney. Bonferroni correction was applied to significant (p < 0.05) results. Content analysis was conducted and relevant categories and themes were identified. RESULTS: Social and health professionals (n = 54) rated their confidence to manage the needs of people with ID and epilepsy equally. Health professionals showed better awareness (p < 0.001) of the findings/recommendations of the latest evidence on premature deaths and identifying and managing epilepsy-related risks, including the relevance of nocturnal monitoring. The content analysis highlighted the need for clearer roles, improved care pathways, better epilepsy-specific knowledge, increased resources, and better multi-disciplinary work. CONCLUSIONS: A gap exists between health and social care professionals in awareness of epilepsy needs for people with ID, requiring essential training and national pathways.

Epilepsy, anti-seizure medication, intellectual disability and challenging behaviour - Everyone's business, no one's priority.

PURPOSE: People with Intellectual Disability (ID) and epilepsy are more likely to experience psychiatric conditions, challenging behaviour (CB), treatment resistance and adverse effects of anti-seizure medications (ASM) than those without. This population receives care from various professionals, depending on local care pathways. This study evaluates the training status, confidence, reported assessment and management practices of different professional groups involved in caring for people with ID, epilepsy and CB. METHODS: A cross sectional survey using a questionnaire developed by expert consensus which measured self-reported training status, confidence, and approaches to assessment and management of CB in people with ID and epilepsy was distributed to practitioners involved in epilepsy and/or ID. RESULTS: Of the 83 respondents, the majority had either a psychiatry/ID (n = 39), or Neurology/epileptology background (n = 31). Psychiatry/ID and Neurology/epileptology had similar confidence in assessing CB in ID-epilepsy cases, but Psychiatry/ID exhibited higher self-rated confidence in the management of these cases. While assessing and managing CB, Psychiatry/ID appeared more likely to consider mental health aspects, while Neurology/epileptology typically focused on ASM. CONCLUSION: Psychiatry/ID and Neurology/epileptology professionals had varying training levels in epilepsy, ID and CB, had differing confidence levels in managing this patient population, and considered different factors when approaching assessment and management. As such, training opportunities in ID should be offered to neurology professionals, and vice versa. Based on the findings, a best practice checklist is presented, which aims to provide clinicians with a structured framework to consider causal explanations for CB in this population.