Back to Journals » Patient Preference and Adherence » Volume 13

Lay People’s Ethical Attitudes To Placebo Treatment: A Q-Methodology Study

Authors Hammami MM, Hammami S, Aboushaar R, Aljomah AS

Received 21 May 2019

Accepted for publication 6 September 2019

Published 27 September 2019 Volume 2019:13 Pages 1599—1617

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S216565

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Nicola Ludin

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen


Video abstract presented by Hammami et al.

Views: 55

Muhammad M Hammami,1,2 Safa Hammami,3 Reem Aboushaar,4 Ahmed S Aljomah1

1Clinical Studies and Empirical Ethics Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Alfaisal University College of Medicine, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 3St. Mary Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; 4MS IV, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

Correspondence: Muhammad M Hammami
Clinical Studies and Empirical Ethics Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, P O Box # 3354 (MBC 03), Riyadh 11211, Saudi Arabia
Tel +966-1-442-4527
Fax +966-1-442-7894
Email Muhammad@kfshrc.edu.sa

Background: Placebo-treatment acceptability is debated among ethicists, mostly due to conflict between respect-to-autonomy and beneficence principles. It is not clear how lay people balance these and other ethical principles.
Methods: One hundred and eighty-seven respondents rank-ordered 42 opinion statements covering various ethical aspects of placebo-treatment, according to a 9-category symmetrical distribution. We analyzed statements’ scores using averaging-analysis and by-person factor analysis (Q-methodology).
Results: Respondents’ mean (SD) age was 34.6 (10.6) years, 54% were women, 40% healthcare-related, 68% Muslims (31% Christians), and 39% received general education in Saudi Arabia (24% in the Philippines). On averaging-analysis, the most-agreeable statements were “Acceptable if benefit to patient large” and “Acceptable with physician intent to benefit patient”. The most-disagreeable statements were “Acceptable with physician self-benefit intent” and “Acceptable with large harm to other patients”. Muslims gave a higher rank to “Giving no description is acceptable”, “Acceptable with small benefit to patient”, and “Acceptable with physician intent to benefit patient” and a lower rank to “Acceptable to describe as inactive drug”, “Acceptable with physician intent to please patient caring relative”, and “Acceptable with moderate harm to other patients” (p<0.01). Q-methodology detected several ethical attitude models that were mostly multi-principled and consequentialism-dominated. The majority of Christian and Philippines-educated women loaded on a “relatively family and deception-concerned” model, whereas the majority of Muslim and Saudi Arabia-educated women loaded on a “relatively common-good-concerned” model. The majority of Christian and healthcare men loaded on a “relatively deception-concerned” model, whereas the majority of Muslim and non-healthcare men loaded on a “relatively motives-concerned” model. Of nine intent-related statements, ≥2 received extreme rank on averaging-analysis and in 100% of women and men models.
Conclusion: 1) On averaging-analysis, patient’s beneficence (consequentialism) followed by physician’s intent (virtue ethics) were more important than deception (respect-to-autonomy). 2) Q-methodology identified several ethical attitude models that were mostly multi-principled and associated with respondents’ demographics.

Keywords: lay people attitude, placebo treatment, virtue, common good, principlism, Q-methodology

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]