
pmid: 30146055
Nocebo effects comprise two broad types: primary nocebo effects, in which overall treatment efficacy is reduced; and nocebo side effects, which result in the increased experience of unpleasant secondary side effects. An important factor in generating nocebo effects of both types is the patient's expectations of how well a treatment will work, and how likely it is to cause side effects. One source of negative expectations is the presence of generic-as opposed to brand name-labeling. A medicine's labeling is likely to be one of the first aspects of a treatment that is encountered by a patient, and perhaps the most common labeling information on pharmaceuticals is the labeling that identifies the drug as being made by the originator brand manufacturer, or as a generic copy. Although generic medicines are pharmaceutically equivalent to their brand name counterparts, generics are often viewed with distrust and perceived to be inferior to branded medicines. Negative perceptions of generic pharmaceuticals may contribute to reduced treatment efficacy via enhanced primary nocebo effects, and increased nocebo side effects. This chapter reviews evidence for the role of brand and generic labeling in treatment outcomes across a range of contexts-most often laboratory research assessing pain outcomes, as well as the influence of related factors including price, familiarity, and treatment switches. Although increasing evidence suggests that labeling of medicines can shape nocebo effects, interventions to improve perceptions of generics do not necessarily translate into more positive treatment outcomes.
Treatment Outcome, Drugs, Generic, Humans, Patient Preference, Recognition, Psychology, Nocebo Effect, Product Labeling
Treatment Outcome, Drugs, Generic, Humans, Patient Preference, Recognition, Psychology, Nocebo Effect, Product Labeling
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 18 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
