ArticleHealth psychology research2020
Psychological predictors of the use of complementary and alternative medicines during pregnancy within a sample of Swiss women.
Article in Health psychology research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Relationship between Bullshit Receptivity and Willingness to Share Misinformation about Climate Change: The Moderating Role of Pregnancy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Health literacy in dietary supplement use among working-age groups: systematic review and meta-analysis.Heliyon · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Past works have witnessed increased prevalence of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) among women during pregnancy. This study aimed to identify psychological antecedents underlying CAM use through the exploration of various predictors. Drawing upon the literature on the use of CAM in contexts unrelated to pregnancy, this research explored the role of various predictors: perceived stress, beliefs about medicine, health locus of control (HLOC), health literacy, bullshit receptivity, and belief in conspiracy theories (CT). 376 Swiss women were recruited to complete a web-based questionnaire in which the use of different kinds of CAM was investigated. We performed hierarchical regression analyses with backward method to assess the overall variance explained by the predictors, as well as their unique contributions. We measured the number of CAM used during last pregnancy and frequency of use. Analyses showed that CAM use was positively associated with perceived stress, beliefs about medicine, internal HLOC, and belief in CT. In contrast, negative relationships were found with external HLOC, bullshit receptivity, and health literacy. By illuminating such factors, this research contributed to explaining why women may be tempted to choose CAM in place of conventional medicine, which may be of particular interest for health professionals in the planning of communication strategies aimed at limiting risks associated to their use during pregnancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.