Tales of the unexpected: psychedelic trial design solutions
Abstract
<p>This article spotlights problematic assumptions and practices in clinical psychedelic research that together hamper the field’s ability to demonstrate causal identification, contributing to confusion and misunderstanding: (1) the main problematic assumption is that pretreatment expectancy causes therapeutic response; while expectancy predicts response to most treatments, it is becoming increasingly clear that the same is not true for psychedelic therapy—and we offer a plausible hypothesis for why; (2) the main problematic practice is the double-blind procedure, which is ecologically invalid, ethically questionable, and fails to achieve its purpose (causal identification) due to functional unblinding; we propose alternative trial designs that can circumvent the need for participant blinding while improving our ability to draw strong inferences regarding the causal action of psychedelic therapy.</p>
Topics & conditions
Detected automatically by Psychedelic Commons from the title and abstract, not labels from the source. They may be incomplete.
Psychedelic Commons aggregates metadata from open sources and links back to the original. Rights remain with the authors and publishers. Something wrong with this record? Report a problem.