Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29668058›Full record

ArticleMonographs of the Society for Research in Child Development2018

I. INTRODUCTION: UNDERSTANDING MEDICINES AND MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS.

Kristi L Lockhart, Frank C Keil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kristi L Lockhart
Frank C Keil
Universitas Kristen Indonesia · ID

Funding

The Emergence of Folk ScienceR37HD023922 · NICHD · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI KEIL, FRANK C · 2003 to 2012
$2.6M
NICHD NIH HHS R37 HD023922
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We live in an increasingly pharmacological and medical world, where children and adults frequently encounter alleged treatments for an enormous range of illnesses. How do we come to understand what heals and why? Here, 15 studies explore how 1,414 children (ages 5-11) and 882 adults construe the efficacies of different kinds of cures. Developmental patterns in folk physics, psychology, and biology lead to predictions about which expectations about cures will remain relatively constant across development and which will change. With respect to stability, we find that even young school children (ages 5-7) distinguish between physical and psychological disorders and the treatments most effective for each. In contrast, young children reason differently about temporal properties associated with cures. They often judge that dramatic departures from prescribed schedules will continue to be effective. Young children are also less likely than older ages to differentiate between the treatment needs of acute versus chronic disorders. Young children see medicines as agent-like entities that migrate only to afflicted regions while having "cure-all" properties, views that help explain their difficulties grasping side effects. They also differ from older children and adults by judging pain and effort as reducing, instead of enhancing, a treatment's power. Finally, across all studies, optimism about treatment efficacy declines with age. Taken together, these studies show major developmental changes in how children envision the ways medicines work in the body. Moreover, these findings link to broader patterns in cognitive development and have implications for how medicines should be explained to children.

Indexed as

ComprehensionDrug TherapyChildChild DevelopmentChild HealthChild, PreschoolCognitionHumans

Identifiers

PMID29668058
PMCPMC5912670
OpenAlexW2802937209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.