China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Where Eagles Don't Dare
Published in Frank R. Spellman, The Science of Wind Power, 2022
I was also able to substantiate and attest to the growing body of research that suggests that nocebo effects may play a role in a number of self-reported health impacts related to the presence of wind turbines. Note that nocebo effects are the opposite of placebo effects—placebo effects occur whenever a positive outcome is anticipated, and nocebo effects result due to negative expectations. Studies have indicated that negative attitudes and worries of individuals about perceived environmental risks have been shown to be associated with adverse health-related symptoms such as headache, nausea, dizziness, agitation, and depression, even in the absence of an identifiable cause (Boss, 1997; Henningsen and Priebe, 2003; Petrie et al., 2001). The circulation of negative information and priming of expectations, psychogenic factors, have been shown to impact self-assessments following exposure to wind turbine noise (Chapman et al., 2013; Crichton et al., 2014). Thus, it is important to consider the role of mass media in influencing public attitudes about wind turbines and how this may alter the response and perceived health impacts of wind turbines in the community. Deignan et al. (2013), for example, showed that newspaper coverage of the probable health effects of wind turbines in Ontario has tended to emphasize “fright factors” about wind turbines. Specifically, Deignan et al. stated that 94% of articles provided “negative, loaded or fear-evoking” descriptions of “health-related signs, symptoms or adverse effects of wind turbine exposure” and 58% of the articles suggested that the effects of wind turbines on human health were “poorly understood by science.”
Classical Statistics and Modern Machine Learning
Published in Mark Chang, Artificial Intelligence for Drug Development, Precision Medicine, and Healthcare, 2020
The placebo effect is related to the perceptions and expectations of the patient. If the substance is viewed by the patient as helpful, it can help to heal, but, if it is viewed as harmful, it can cause negative effects, which is known as the nocebo effect.
HF Epidemiologic Studies
Published in Ben Greenebaum, Frank Barnes, Biological and Medical Aspects of Electromagnetic Fields, 2018
Maria Feychting, Martin Röösli, Joachim Schüz
In relation to mobile phone use, reverse causality is of concern, which means that subjective health status and also behavioral problems may affect the amount of mobile phone use and not vice versa. For instance, the decision to use a mobile phone may depend on the cognitive performance (in the form of reverse causality). This is expected to be particularly relevant for the uptake of mobile phone use in the elderly generation. It is also conceivable that using a mobile phone might have a training effect on cognitive performance, independent of any radiation effect. Further, some common latent variables (confounders) may affect both quality of life and use of mobile phone or other life-style related RF-EMF sources (cordless phones, WLAN). Further, these mobile phone studies almost exclusively rely on self-reported exposure data, which makes them vulnerable to reporting bias or nocebo effects, especially since the outcomes are also self-reported. The nocebo effect is the inverse of the placebo effect and means that adverse symptoms occur due to expectations (e.g., due to concerns). Human experimental research has consistently demonstrated the occurrence of nocebo phenomena in EMF research [38,39]. With respect to far-field sources, exposure assessment is a challenge. The first studies used self-reported distance to the closest base-station as an exposure proxy, but it is now well established that such an exposure measure is not correlated to RF exposure and likely to be biased [10,11]. This is due to the fact that persons who are worried about base stations tend to underestimate the distance compared to persons without such worries [69]. Selection bias, reporting bias and nocebo phenomena are of concern if people are aware of their exposure status, which is typically the case for large transmitters where exposure levels tend to be associated with distance to the source [70,71]. For measured RF fields from base stations and other small transmitters, exposure pattern is more complex and thus exposure is not related to distance [10], making nocebo and reporting bias in general less of a problem. Conversely, this implies that associations between distance to such sources and symptoms cannot be due to RF exposure. A particular challenge for studies dealing with environmental RF is the fact that these sources contribute only minimally to overall cumulative RF exposure compared to RF from devices used close to body. However, the latter is not considered in many of these environmental RF studies, which is expected to produce substantial exposure misclassification. Reverse causality is expected to play a minor role for these studies on far-field EMF sources since they are not related to life style.
The Placebo and Nocebo effect on sports performance: A systematic review
Published in European Journal of Sport Science, 2020
Philip Hurst, Lieke Schipof-Godart, Attila Szabo, John Raglin, Florentina Hettinga, Bart Roelands, Andrew Lane, Abby Foad, Damian Coleman, Chris Beedie
The placebo effect is a psychobiological response to a purported beneficial treatment (Hurst, Foad, Coleman, & Beedie, 2017). The nocebo effect is the opposite, a psychobiological response to a purported harmful treatment (Beedie et al., 2018). In the last two decades, research in sport and exercise science suggests that placebo and nocebo effects can significantly influence sport performance (Beedie et al., 2018). In this review, we aim to determine the magnitude of the placebo and nocebo effect on sport performance in studies published to date.