Great Expectations Heighten Placebo Effect
Migraine patients who were told they were getting a real drug did better than those who got the same treatment but who were told they were getting a placebo
By Cynthia Graber
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The messages doctors give can influence some treatments’ effectiveness. For example, it seems that information from a doctor affects outcomes for migraine sufferers—whether they got a real drug or a placebo.
Researchers studied 66 people with recurring migraines over the course of seven attacks.
During the first headache, the patients received no treatment. For the next six, they were given either a placebo or a drug. Each time, regardless of which they got, some were told it was the drug, some were told it was the placebo, and the rest were informed that it could be either the drug or the placebo.
Overall, the drug did work better than the placebo. But the placebo worked, too—both when the patients were told it was a placebo, and even better when the doctors told them that they were getting the drug. That is, when the docs set their expectations high.
Meanwhile, the actual drug was least effective when the patients thought it was a placebo. The study is in the journal Science Translational Medicine. [Slavenka Kam-Hansen et al., Altered Placebo and Drug Labeling Changes the Outcome of Episodic Migraine Attacks]
The physician’s input thus plays a role in how migraine patients fare. Tell them they’re getting a good treatment, and they’re apparently more likely to respond.
—Cynthia Graber
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
