Trial reportScientific reports2026
Effects of debunking interventions on endorsement of alternative medicine: a randomized controlled experiment in Peru.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Debunking interventions to tackle misconceptions related to scientific issues have gained momentum, especially in the context of health care. In this randomized controlled experiment, we assessed the effectiveness of tailored (i.e., contrarian information addressing participants' specific motives with an affirmation of their psychological profile) and non-tailored (i.e., general contrarian information regardless of participants' psychological profile) debunking interventions in a sample of 167 Peruvian participants with positive attitudes toward egg cleanse, a popular local alternative medicine treatment. Our debunking interventions did not significantly correct attitudinal variables related to egg cleanse, such as belief in effectiveness, future use, and preference over conventional medicine. However, exploratory analyses showed significant reductions in endorsement of usage reasons within both the tailored debunk (d = 0.50) and non-tailored debunk (d = 0.62) groups. Moreover, a comparison between the two debunking groups indicated that participants who received a tailored debunk were more satisfied with the interaction with the physician than those who received a non-tailored debunk (d = 0.73). These results suggest that debunking interventions on misinformed health beliefs could have an impact also in the Peruvian cultural context and for alternative medicine, even though more direct attitudinal variables are particularly resistant to change. Strengths and weaknesses of tailored and non-tailored approaches to health misinformation, as well as future research pathways to shed light on the impact and pitfalls of debunking interventions, are discussed.
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.