ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Deciphering the Roots of Pharmacists' Critical Thinking About Pseudoscientific Claims: Insights from a Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The global trend toward self-medication has increased public reliance on over-the-counter treatments and health-related information, contributing to the spread of pseudoscientific claims in healthcare and posing serious public health risks. Pharmacists, as accessible healthcare professionals, play a crucial role in critically evaluating these claims and providing evidence-based guidance. However, little quantitative research has assessed pharmacists' critical thinking regarding pseudoscientific claims or the factors influencing them. This study aims to evaluate the demographic factors affecting pharmacists' critical thinking about pseudoscientific claims. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among pharmacists in hospitals, insurance pharmacies, and drugstores across Japan. The newly developed Pseudoscience Criticism Scale (PCS) measured attitudes toward pseudoscientific claims. Statistical analysis identified factors that form and influence critical thinking. This study revealed two primary dimensions: "Medical Superstitions and Unscientific Treatments" and "Natural Healing Superstitions". Gender and educational background significantly impacted PCS scores, with male pharmacists and graduates from six-year pharmacy programs exhibiting higher skepticism. These findings underscore the importance of ongoing professional development in pharmacy education to strengthen critical thinking. The PCS is an effective tool for assessing this competency. Enhancing educational efforts is essential to equip pharmacists to effectively counter pseudoscientific claims and improve public health.
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.