Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37083856›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Medical decision making beyond evidence: Correlates of belief in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and homeopathy.

Leonie Aßmann, Tilmann Betsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Leonie AßmannDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6625-2065
Tilmann BetschDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many people believe in and use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to address health issues or prevent diseases. Empirical evidence for those treatments is either lacking or controversial due to methodological weaknesses. Thus, practitioners and patients primarily rely on subjective references rather than credible empirical evidence from systematic research. This study investigated whether cognitive and personality factors explain differences in belief in CAM and homeopathy. We investigated the robustness of 21 predictors when examined together to obtain insights into key determinants of such beliefs in a sample of 599 participants (60% female, 18-81 years). A combination of predictors explained 20% of the variance in CAM belief (predictors: ontological confusions, spiritual epistemology, agreeableness, death anxiety, gender) and approximately 21% of the variance in belief in homeopathy (predictors: ontological confusions, illusory pattern perception, need for cognitive closure, need for cognition, honesty-humility, death anxiety, gender, age). Individuals believing in CAM and homeopathy have cognitive biases and certain individual differences which make them perceive the world differently. Findings are discussed in the context of previous literature and in relation to other unfounded beliefs.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesHomeopathyClinical Decision-MakingCognitionFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID37083856
PMCPMC10121010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.