ArticleBMC public health2025
Critical thinking about health and treatments in the United States: a cross-sectional assessment of parents and undergraduate college students.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Critical Health Literacy Podcast to Counter Health Misinformation at Scale: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Trial
- Interventions to promote critical health literacy: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- The People's Review protocol: planning an innovative study powered by the public.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an urgent need to study and increase the public's ability to think critically about health and treatments. Unfortunately, we do not currently have a clear, in-depth understanding of critical thinking about health in the United States, especially its rates among parents and college students, two particularly important groups. This study assessed and characterized critical thinking about health with U. S. parents and college students. We also explored whether critical thinking about health varied as a function of sociodemographic determinants.
methodsParents (N = 142) and college students (N = 145) in the U. S. completed an online test of critical thinking about health, and answered questions about their background.
resultsBoth parents and college students in the U. S. struggled to think critically about health and treatments based on various science literacy and evidence-based practice principles. Parents with higher educational attainment had lower critical thinking about health, and college students who reported a liberal political affiliation had higher critical thinking scores.
conclusionsThis investigation demonstrates a need to increase critical thinking about health among U. S. parents and college students so they can be empowered to make informed health choices.
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.