医生更喜欢天然药物吗?

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL European Journal of Health Psychology Pub Date : 2022-06-23 DOI:10.1027/2512-8442/a000116
Courtney M. Lappas, N. Coyne, Amanda J. Dillard, Brian P. Meier
{"title":"医生更喜欢天然药物吗?","authors":"Courtney M. Lappas, N. Coyne, Amanda J. Dillard, Brian P. Meier","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Background: There is a bias for natural versus synthetic drugs in general populations. Aims: We investigated whether physicians who have advanced medical and scientific training and routinely prescribe drugs exhibit this bias. Methods: Physicians and non-physicians were presented with a hypothetical medical situation in which pharmacological therapy was required. Participants were asked if they would prefer a natural or synthetic drug for treatment. Physicians were also asked which drug they would prescribe to a patient. Results: In a forced-choice paradigm, non-physicians (87.5%) and physicians (79.2%) had an equally strong bias for the natural drug, with physicians (74.3%) also preferring the natural drug for patients. When a 9-point drug choice scale was used, including a “no preference” choice (5), non-physicians ( M = 6.91) and physicians ( M = 5.41) again showed a preference for the natural drug compared to the mid-point of the scale, but the non-physicians’ bias was stronger. Physicians no longer preferred the natural drug for patients ( M = 5.15). Limitations: The participants do not represent a random sample and therefore may not represent physicians/non-physicians in general. Additionally, the responses were hypothetical and may not represent behavior in actual medical contexts. Conclusion: These data indicate that physicians and non-physicians exhibit a bias for natural drugs, with physicians also demonstrating a bias for prescribing natural drugs. However, the bias is reduced in physicians compared to non-physicians when a “no preference” option is available, suggesting that advanced medical and/or scientific training may be beneficial in minimizing this bias.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Physicians Prefer Natural Drugs?\",\"authors\":\"Courtney M. Lappas, N. Coyne, Amanda J. Dillard, Brian P. Meier\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/2512-8442/a000116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. Background: There is a bias for natural versus synthetic drugs in general populations. Aims: We investigated whether physicians who have advanced medical and scientific training and routinely prescribe drugs exhibit this bias. Methods: Physicians and non-physicians were presented with a hypothetical medical situation in which pharmacological therapy was required. Participants were asked if they would prefer a natural or synthetic drug for treatment. Physicians were also asked which drug they would prescribe to a patient. Results: In a forced-choice paradigm, non-physicians (87.5%) and physicians (79.2%) had an equally strong bias for the natural drug, with physicians (74.3%) also preferring the natural drug for patients. When a 9-point drug choice scale was used, including a “no preference” choice (5), non-physicians ( M = 6.91) and physicians ( M = 5.41) again showed a preference for the natural drug compared to the mid-point of the scale, but the non-physicians’ bias was stronger. Physicians no longer preferred the natural drug for patients ( M = 5.15). Limitations: The participants do not represent a random sample and therefore may not represent physicians/non-physicians in general. Additionally, the responses were hypothetical and may not represent behavior in actual medical contexts. Conclusion: These data indicate that physicians and non-physicians exhibit a bias for natural drugs, with physicians also demonstrating a bias for prescribing natural drugs. However, the bias is reduced in physicians compared to non-physicians when a “no preference” option is available, suggesting that advanced medical and/or scientific training may be beneficial in minimizing this bias.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Health Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Health Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000116\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000116","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要背景:在一般人群中存在天然药物与合成药物的偏见。目的:我们调查了接受过先进医学和科学训练并经常开药的医生是否表现出这种偏见。方法:向医生和非医生提出一个假设的医疗情况,其中需要药物治疗。参与者被问及他们更喜欢天然药物还是合成药物进行治疗。医生们还被问及他们会给病人开哪种药。结果:在强迫选择范式中,非医生(87.5%)和医生(79.2%)对天然药物有同样强烈的偏见,医生(74.3%)也更倾向于患者使用天然药物。当使用包含“无偏好”选项(5)的9点药物选择量表时,非医生(M = 6.91)和医生(M = 5.41)与量表中点相比,再次表现出对天然药物的偏好,但非医生的偏见更强。医生不再倾向于患者使用天然药物(M = 5.15)。局限性:参与者不代表随机样本,因此可能不代表一般的医生/非医生。此外,这些反应是假设的,可能不代表实际医疗环境中的行为。结论:这些数据表明,医生和非医生都对天然药物有偏见,医生也对开天然药物有偏见。然而,与非医生相比,当有“无偏好”选项时,医生的偏见会减少,这表明先进的医疗和/或科学培训可能有助于减少这种偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Do Physicians Prefer Natural Drugs?
Abstract. Background: There is a bias for natural versus synthetic drugs in general populations. Aims: We investigated whether physicians who have advanced medical and scientific training and routinely prescribe drugs exhibit this bias. Methods: Physicians and non-physicians were presented with a hypothetical medical situation in which pharmacological therapy was required. Participants were asked if they would prefer a natural or synthetic drug for treatment. Physicians were also asked which drug they would prescribe to a patient. Results: In a forced-choice paradigm, non-physicians (87.5%) and physicians (79.2%) had an equally strong bias for the natural drug, with physicians (74.3%) also preferring the natural drug for patients. When a 9-point drug choice scale was used, including a “no preference” choice (5), non-physicians ( M = 6.91) and physicians ( M = 5.41) again showed a preference for the natural drug compared to the mid-point of the scale, but the non-physicians’ bias was stronger. Physicians no longer preferred the natural drug for patients ( M = 5.15). Limitations: The participants do not represent a random sample and therefore may not represent physicians/non-physicians in general. Additionally, the responses were hypothetical and may not represent behavior in actual medical contexts. Conclusion: These data indicate that physicians and non-physicians exhibit a bias for natural drugs, with physicians also demonstrating a bias for prescribing natural drugs. However, the bias is reduced in physicians compared to non-physicians when a “no preference” option is available, suggesting that advanced medical and/or scientific training may be beneficial in minimizing this bias.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Die "Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie" wurde gegründet, um dem raschen Anwachsen gesundheitspsychologischer Forschung sowie deren Relevanz für verschiedene Anwendungsfelder gerecht zu werden. Gesundheitspsychologie versteht sich als wissenschaftlicher Beitrag der Psychologie zur Förderung und Erhaltung von Gesundheit, zur Verhütung und Behandlung von Krankheiten, zur Bestimmung von Risikoverhaltensweisen, zur Diagnose und Ursachenbestimmung von gesundheitlichen Störungen sowie zur Verbessung des Systems gesundheitlicher Vorsorge.
期刊最新文献
Unintended Consequences of Digital Behavior Change Interventions Personal Resources, Well-Being, Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms of Youth in Out-Of-Home Care New Insights Into Predictors of Antihypertensive Adherence Peer-Recommended Coping Strategies for Individuals Living With Alopecia Areata Peer-Recommended Coping Strategies for Individuals Living With Alopecia Areata
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1