ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Conflict among experts in health recommendations and corresponding public trust in health experts.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- General practitioners' willingness and perceived barriers and facilitators to 'prescribing' potassium-enriched salt in China: an explanatory sequential mixed methods study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Social media and the spread of misinformation: infectious and a threat to public health.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Papermills as another challenge to research integrity and trust in science.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Rural Patients' Perceived Importance of Racial and Ethnic Concordance With Providers and Receipt of Annual Routine Visits.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Experiences of the Development of a Revised, Population-Adjusted Communicative Health Literacy Scale.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Patient trust in the health system, Internet information searching and the patient-provider relationship.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- An Essential Infinitebook for Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Preoperative Planning.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Public trust in health experts has been decreasing leading to decreased adherence to expert recommendations. Objective: To evaluate public perceptions of conflict and uncertainty among experts in healthcare recommendations and association with decreased trust in health entities for accurate health information. Methods: Analysis of the US nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 6-2022). Adults aged 18 and older were respondents to the survey (unweighted Results: There was high trust in doctors for health information (95%) versus 84% in scientists and 70% in government health agencies. Only 18% have high trust in the health information on social media. Respondents who felt expert recommendations change often were less likely to have high trust (65%) in government agencies compared to those who felt that the recommendations did not often change (82%) ( Conclusion: The public has low trust in government health agencies and perceptions of conflict among experts over recommendations is likely playing a role in the erosion of trust in health experts.
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.