» Articles » PMID: 39585091

Deciphering the Roots of Pharmacists' Critical Thinking About Pseudoscientific Claims: Insights from a Cross-Sectional Survey

Overview
Date 2024 Nov 25
PMID 39585091
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The global trend toward self-medication has increased public reliance on over-the-counter treatments and health-related information, contributing to the spread of pseudoscientific claims in healthcare and posing serious public health risks. Pharmacists, as accessible healthcare professionals, play a crucial role in critically evaluating these claims and providing evidence-based guidance. However, little quantitative research has assessed pharmacists' critical thinking regarding pseudoscientific claims or the factors influencing them. This study aims to evaluate the demographic factors affecting pharmacists' critical thinking about pseudoscientific claims. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among pharmacists in hospitals, insurance pharmacies, and drugstores across Japan. The newly developed Pseudoscience Criticism Scale (PCS) measured attitudes toward pseudoscientific claims. Statistical analysis identified factors that form and influence critical thinking. This study revealed two primary dimensions: "Medical Superstitions and Unscientific Treatments" and "Natural Healing Superstitions". Gender and educational background significantly impacted PCS scores, with male pharmacists and graduates from six-year pharmacy programs exhibiting higher skepticism. These findings underscore the importance of ongoing professional development in pharmacy education to strengthen critical thinking. The PCS is an effective tool for assessing this competency. Enhancing educational efforts is essential to equip pharmacists to effectively counter pseudoscientific claims and improve public health.

References
1.
Satoh M, Matsumoto A, Hara A, Iwamori S, Obara T, Kikuya M . [A survey of self-medication practices and related factors in the general population: the Ohasama study]. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2014; 134(12):1347-55. DOI: 10.1248/yakushi.14-00179. View

2.
Pacini R, Epstein S . The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999; 76(6):972-87. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.76.6.972. View

3.
White E . Science, pseudoscience, and the frontline practitioner: the vaccination/autism debate. J Evid Based Soc Work. 2014; 11(3):269-74. DOI: 10.1080/15433714.2012.759470. View

4.
Tascilar M, de Jong F, Verweij J, Mathijssen R . Complementary and alternative medicine during cancer treatment: beyond innocence. Oncologist. 2006; 11(7):732-41. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.11-7-732. View

5.
Makgoba M . Politics, the media and science in HIV/AIDS: the peril of pseudoscience. Vaccine. 2002; 20(15):1899-904. DOI: 10.1016/s0264-410x(02)00063-4. View