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

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.]
 

Cynthia Graber is a print and radio journalist who covers science, technology, agriculture, and any other stories in the U.S. or abroad that catch her fancy. She's won a number of national awards for her radio documentaries, including the AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award, and is the co-host of the food science podcast Gastropod. She was a Knight Science Journalism fellow at MIT.

More by Cynthia Graber

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe