ArticlePloS one2026
Authoritarian attitudes and the perceived scientific legitimacy of anthroposophic medicine: A survey of attitudes on complementary and alternative medicine in Austria.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study investigates prevalence, usage, and perceived scientific legitimacy of anthroposophic medicine (AM) a prominent form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). It further explores associations with socioeconomic and psychological factors, with particular attention to authoritarian orientation, as measured by the KSA-3 scale and low ambiguity tolerance. DESIGN/
settingA cross-sectional online survey was conducted among the Austrian population assessing sociodemographic characteristics, healthcare utilization, attitudes toward conventional medicine, AM, and CAM, as well as selected psychological variables.
participantsA total of 429 individuals completed the survey. To enhance representativeness, the sample was post-stratified according to recent election results. OUTCOME MEASURES: Regression models and appropriate statistical tests, selected based on data distribution and scale level, were used to evaluate associations between sociodemographic factors, psychological characteristics, and the use of and attitudes toward AM and CAM.
resultsIndividuals over 50 showed higher CAM preference (p = 0.044), and were more likely to have used AM at least once (p = 0.083). Similarly, women showed higher CAM preferences (p = 0.004) and a higher likelihood of AM use (p < 0.001). Participants who viewed AM as scientific tended to be older (p < 0.001), have a higher income (p < 0.001), and resided more often in rural areas (p = 0.012). Psychologically, lower ambiguity tolerance and stronger perceived health control correlated with a stronger belief in AM's scientific legitimacy (p < 0.05). Higher authoritarian orientation was also significantly associated with an increased belief in AM as scientific and a preference for eminence-based approaches (p < 0.001).
conclusionsIn our sample, we demonstrate how differences in specific socioeconomic and psychological factors correspond to differences in attitudes toward CAM and AM. These findings represent a promising foundation for more interdisciplinary research aimed at uncovering the underlying drivers of AM and CAM utilization.
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.