A growing body of evidence suggests that healthcare practitioners who enhance how they express empathy can improve patient health, and reduce medico-legal risk. However we do not know how consistently healthcare practitioners express adequate empathy. In this study, we addressed this gap by investigating patient rankings of practitioner empathy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that asked patients to rate their practitioners’ empathy using the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure. CARE is emerging as the most common and best-validated patient rating of practitioner empathy. We searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cinahl, Science & Social Science Citation Indexes, the Cochrane Library and PubMed from database inception to March 2016. We excluded studies that did not use the CARE measure. Two reviewers independently screened titles and extracted data on average CARE scores, demographic data for patients and practitioners, and type of healthcare practitioners. Sixty-four independent studies within 51 publications had sufficient data to pool. The average CARE score was 40.48 (95% CI, 39.24 to 41.72). This rank s in the bottom 5th percentile in comparison with scores collected by CARE developers. Longer consultations (n = 13) scored 15% higher (42.60, 95% CI 40.66 to 44.54) than shorter (n = 9) consultations (34.93, 95% CI 32.63 to 37.24). Studies with mostly (>50%) female practitioners (n = 6) showed 16% higher empathy scores (42.77, 95% CI 38.98 to 46.56) than those with mostly (>50%) male (n = 6) practitioners (34.84, 95% CI 30.98 to 38.71). There were statistically significant (P = 0.032) differences between types of providers (allied health professionals, medical students, physicians, and traditional Chinese doctors). Allied Health Professionals (n = 6) scored the highest (45.29, 95% CI 41.38 to 49.20), and physicians (n = 39) scored the lowest (39.68, 95% CI 38.29 to 41.08). Patients in Australia, the USA, and the UK reported highest empathy ratings (>43 average CARE), with lowest scores (<35 average CARE scores) in Hong Kong. Patient rankings of practitioner empathy are highly variable, with female practitioners expressing empathy to patients more effectively than male practitioners. The high variability of patient rating of practitioner empathy is likely to be associated with variable patient health outcomes. Limitations included frequent failure to report response rates introducing a risk of response bias. Future work is warranted to investigate ways to reduce the variability in practitioner empathy.

Aim. To collect data on the use of placebo interventions by GPs in Germany. Methods. A questionnaire was mailed to 400 randomly selected GPs in Bavaria. Non-responders were reminded by telephone after 4 weeks and were given a second copy of the questionnaire after a further 3 weeks. Results. In all, 208 completed questionnaires were returned. The majority of GPs (88%) have used a placebo at least once in their practice; 45% have used pure placebos, such as saline injections and sugar pills, at least once last year; the median frequency of use was 5 [interquartile range (IQR), 2–10]. The use of impure placebos during the past year was more common: 76% of GPs have used impure placebos, i.e. medical interventions that have pharmacological or physical activity but have no intrinsic effect (e.g. pharmacological or physical action) on the patient's disease or its symptoms, with a median frequency of 20 times per year (IQR, 10–50). The main reason for the use of placebo was a possible psychological effect, followed by the expectation of patients to receive a treatment. For the majority of GPs placebo interventions were ethically justified if they were used for a possible psychological effect. Conclusions. Placebo interventions are a widely accepted part of medical treatment in German general practices and are used primarily for their psychological effects. Impure placebos are used much more frequently than pure placebos.

For many subjectively experienced outcomes, such as pain and depression, rather large placebo effects have been reported. However, there is increasing evidence that placebo interventions also affect end-organ functions regulated by the autonomic nervous system (ANS). After discussing three psychological models for autonomic placebo effects, this article provides an anatomical framework of the autonomic system and then critically reviews the relevant placebo studies in the field, thereby focusing on gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and pulmonary functions. The findings indicate that several autonomic organ functions can indeed be altered by verbal suggestions delivered during placebo and nocebo interventions. In addition, three experimental studies provide evidence for organ-specific effects, in agreement with the current knowledge on the central control of the ANS. It is suggested that the placebo effects on autonomic organ functions are best explained by the model of ‘implicit affordance’, which assumes that placebo effects are dependent on ‘lived experience’ rather than on the conscious representation of expected outcomes. Nevertheless, more studies will be needed to further elucidate psychological and neurobiological pathways involved in autonomic placebo effects.

The field of placebo research has made considerable progress in the last years and it has become a major focus of interest. We know now that the placebo effect is a real neurobiological phenomenon and that the brain's ‘inner pharmacy’ is a critical determinant for the occurrence of psychobiological and behavioural changes relevant to healing processes and well-being. However, harnessing the advantages of placebo effects in healthcare is still a challenge. The first part of the theme issue summarizes and discusses the various kinds of placebo mechanisms across medical fields, thereby not only focusing on two main explanatory models—expectation and conditioning theory—but also taking into account empathy and social learning, emotion and motivation, spirituality and the healing ritual. The second part of the issue focuses on questions related to transferring knowledge from placebo research into clinical practice and discusses implications for the design and interpretation of clinical trials, for the therapeutic settings in daily patient care, and for future translational placebo research.