ArticleCureus2025
Disparities in Risk Perception: A Comparison Between Medical and Non-medical Professionals Using Propensity Score Matching.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From compliance to risk: A paradigm for nursing and midwifery regulation in Ireland.Journal of nursing regulation · 2026Article
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
Introduction Disparities in risk perception between non-medical professionals and nurses can affect interdisciplinary communication and decision-making in healthcare. In this study, we explored these differences with a focus on the risks during hospitalization, infection risks, and family accompaniment to inform strategies for improving patient-centered care. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted using a propensity score-matched sample of 826 participants in Japan, including 413 non-medical professionals and 413 nurses. A structured questionnaire was used to assess perceptions of risks related to falls, pressure ulcers, delirium, infection, and family accompaniment during hospitalization. Factor analysis was used to evaluate the validity and reliability of the scale, and t-tests were used to compare group differences. Results The developed scale demonstrated a cumulative contribution rate of 74%, with good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.892 for the first factor). Significant differences were observed between the groups for all parameters (p < 0.001). Non-medical professionals exhibited higher risk perception scores for falls, pressure ulcers, and infections, reflecting a lower tolerance for clinical risks than nurses. Conversely, nurses displayed greater acceptance of uncertainty and family accompaniment practices. Conclusions This study highlights the persistent differences in risk perceptions between non-medical professionals and nurses and emphasizes the need for interventions to bridge these gaps. Addressing the mechanisms of uncertainty and distress and fostering interdisciplinary communication is essential for improving collaborative care and patient outcomes. In the future, researchers should explore the factors driving these differences and develop strategies to align the perceptions of healthcare stakeholders.
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.