Do Physicians Prefer Natural Drugs?

Author:

Lappas Courtney M.1ORCID,Coyne Nicholas1,Dillard Amanda J.2ORCID,Meier Brian P.3

Affiliation:

1. Department of Biology, Lebanon Valley College, Annville, PA, USA

2. Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, USA

3. Department of Psychology, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA, USA

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.

Publisher

Hogrefe Publishing Group

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,Clinical Psychology

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3