An international Delphi consensus for reporting of setting in psychedelic clinical trials
An international four‑round Delphi (89 experts from 17 countries) produced the ReSPCT guidelines: 30 consensus‑rated extra‑pharmacological variables, categorised into physical environment, dosing session procedure, therapeutic framework and subjective experiences. These guidelines provide a new standard to improve the design and reporting of set and setting in psychedelic clinical trials.
Abstract
Psychedelic substances exhibit complex interactions with the ‘set and setting’ of use, that is, the mental state of the user and the environment in which a psychedelic experience takes place. Despite these contextual variables’ known importance, psychedelic research has lacked methodological rigor in reporting extra-pharmacological factors. This study aimed to generate consensus-based guidelines for reporting settings in psychedelic clinical research, according to an international group of psychedelic researchers, clinicians and past trial participants. We conducted a Delphi consensus study composed of four iterative rounds of quasi-anonymous online surveys. A total of 89 experts from 17 countries independently listed potentially important psychedelic setting variables. There were 770 responses, synthesized into 49 distinct items that were subsequently rated, debated and refined. The process yielded 30 extra-pharmacological variables reaching predefined consensus ratings:i.e., ‘important’ or ‘very important’ for ≥70% of experts. These items compose the Reporting of Setting in Psychedelic Clinical Trials (ReSPCT) guidelines, categorized into physical environment, dosing session procedure, therapeutic framework and protocol, and subjective experiences. Emergent findings reveal significant ambiguities in current conceptualizations of set and setting. The ReSPCT guidelines and accompanying explanatory document provide a new standard for the design and documentation of extra-pharmacological variables in psychedelic clinical research.
Research Summary of 'An international Delphi consensus for reporting of setting in psychedelic clinical trials'
Introduction
Psychedelic drugs are thought to interact strongly with contextual factors commonly referred to as 'set and setting'—the individual's mental state and the environmental, social and procedural context of use. The authors note that despite longstanding recognition of these influences, clinical research has lacked consistent, rigorous reporting of extra‑pharmacological variables, producing uncertainty about which non‑drug factors most affect outcomes and when they exert their effects. A recent systematic review cited by the authors found many trials failed to report even basic contextual features, limiting transparency and comparability across studies. This study set out to produce consensus‑based reporting guidance for extra‑pharmacological variables in psychedelic clinical trials. Using an international Delphi process, the investigators aimed both to generate a parsimonious, implementable checklist of setting variables warranting routine reporting and to probe how experts currently conceptualise the boundaries and temporality of 'set' and 'setting'. The resulting product is the Reporting of Setting in Psychedelic Clinical Trials (ReSPCT) guidelines, derived from input by clinicians, researchers and former trial participants across multiple countries and institutions.
Expert Research Summaries
Go Pro to access AI-powered section-by-section summaries, editorial takes, and the full research toolkit.
Full Text PDF
Full Paper PDF
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
Study Details
- Study Typemeta
- Journal
- Topic
- Authors
- APA Citation
Pronovost-Morgan, C., Greenway, K. T., Roseman, L., Aday, J. S., Agin-Liebes, G., Ahmad, K., Aicher, H., Aixalà, M., Amar, S., de Araujo, D. B., Barrett, F. S., Belser, A., Blainey, M., Bourne, M., Bowman, R., Breeksema, J., Carter, K. B., Bussey, J., Camara, C., . . . Williams, K. (2025). An international Delphi consensus for reporting of setting in psychedelic clinical trials. Nature Medicine, 31(7), 2186-2195. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03685-9
References (13)
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Schenberg, E. E. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2018)
Pronovost-Morgan, C., Hartogsohn, I., Ramaekers, J. G. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2023)
Hartogsohn, I. · Drug Science Policy and Law (2017)
Vollenweider, F. X., Preller, K. H. · Nature Reviews Neuroscience (2020)
Golden, T. L., Magsamen, S., Sandu, C. C. et al. · Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences (2022)
Studerus, E., Gamma, A., Kometer, M. et al. · PLOS ONE (2012)
Brennan, C., Kelman, A., Belser, A. B. · Psyarxiv (2023)
Van Elk, M., Fried, E. I. · Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2023)
Devenot, N., Seale-Feldman, A., Smith, E. et al. · Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal (2022)
Aday, J. S., Heifets, B. D., Pratscher, S. D. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2021)
Show all 13 referencesShow fewer
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Wagner, A. C., Agrawal, M. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2021)
Cameron, L. P., Tombari, R. J., Lu, J. et al. · Nature (2020)
Garcia-Romeu, A., Kersgaard, B., Addy, P. H. · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (2016)
Cited By (3)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Smith, K. A., Harcourt, E., Cipriani, A. · BJPsych Open (2026)
Schlomberg, J. T. T., Meling, D., Grylka, R. et al. · Scientific Reports (2026)
Thuery, G., Crossen, F., Mc Loone, D. et al. · Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2026)
Your Personal Research Library
Go Pro to save papers, add notes, rate studies, and organize your research into custom shelves.