SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2026
Neurophobia in health profession students and practitioners: a systematic review and synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM).
Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeurophobia, defined as the fear of or aversion to neurology and neuroscience, is a challenge across health sciences and may contribute to workforce shortages. Previous reviews have exclusively focused on medical populations and have not systematically addressed measurement variability or the effects of educational interventions.
objectiveThis systematic review builds on previous studies by analyzing neurophobia across the health sciences, focusing on prevalence rates, measurement instruments, associated factors, and the effects of educational interventions.
methodsA systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies explicitly measured neurophobia and provided details of the measurement tool used. A structured narrative synthesis was performed following synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) principles and methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
results21 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These were conducted across diverse countries, and predominantly involved medical students and physicians in training, with dental and veterinary students also represented. Measurement instruments showed substantial heterogeneity and were classified into four domains: affective response, cognitive appraisal, capability beliefs, and motivational consequences. Prevalence rates ranged from 19% to 66%. Higher interest and greater clinical exposure were associated with lower neurophobia, whereas gender and academic progression showed inconsistent associations. Evidence on educational interventions was limited and heterogeneous, although clinical or applied approaches suggested reductions in neurophobia.
conclusionOverall, findings highlight variability in prevalence and measurement approaches. Associations with clinical exposure and reductions following clinically or applied educational interventions suggest that neurophobia might be less strongly associated with neurosciences' intrinsic complexity and more strongly associated with modifiable educational factors.
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.