ArticleScientific reports2025
The impacts of nonnegative doctor portrayals on public evaluations and professional attractiveness in medicine.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study explores the impacts of four common nonnegative media portrayals of doctors (i.e., science experts, angels in white, white-coated warriors, and vulnerable groups) on public evaluations (i.e.,stereotype content, emotional responses, and trust) and professional attractiveness (i.e.,willingness to marry or encourage child to become a doctor). Study 1 (N = 216) featured a between-participants design, revealing that the warrior and angel portrayals both led to more favourable ratings for warmth, competence, morality, admiration, reduced contempt, and trust than were observed in the control group. The warrior portrayal consistently received the highest scores in most dimensions, including professional attractiveness. The expert portrayal notably enhanced competence evaluations and reduced contempt, whereas the vulnerable portrayal elicited higher levels of sympathy but was associated with the lowest scores in most other dimensions. Study 2 (N = 320) featured a 3 (portrayal type; within-participants) × 6 (sequence; between-participants) mixed design, revealing that presentation order moderated the effects of such portrayals. The most effective sequence, angel-expert-vulnerable, elicited the highest overall evaluations, whereas the angel-vulnerable-expert sequence was least effective. These findings suggest that not only content but also sequence of portrayals can shape public attitudes towards doctors, thus highlighting relevant implications for health communication and media strategies.
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.