MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385669501 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.2388

Personal beliefs versus evidence-based decisions: vaccination behavior and doubts about antidepressants of students of medicine are affected by conspiracy theories

2023· article· en· W4385669501 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vojtěch Pišl, D. Kestlerova, Tomáš Skorkovský, Jan Vevera

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud MentalUniversitat de BarcelonaUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPsychologyLogistic regressionCognitionVaccinationClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction When medical professionals are obliged to adhere to lege artis and evidence-based decision-making, they need to interpret available evidence. As a complex cognitive process, however, such interpretation may be affected by socio-cognitive biases and predispositions. For instance, the conspiracy mentality (the general readiness to believe in conspiracy theories) or biological determinism (the belief that human lives are determined biologically) affect attitudes to antidepressant medication and vaccination in the public. Little is known about the effects of these variables on the decision-making of clinicians or students of medicine. Objectives The study examines the effects of conspiracy mentality (CM), covid-related conspiracy beliefs (CCBs), and biological determinism (BD) on the doubts students of medicine have about antidepressants and on their uptake of the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Methods CM, CCBs and BD were measured in May 2022 in a sample of 179 students of medicine (115 females), using the Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire by Bruder et al. (2013), set of items measuring CCBs developed by Imhoff and Laberty (2021), and the Biological Basis scale by Bastian and Haslam (2006), respectively. The doubts about antidepressants were measured by the Antidepressant Conspiracy Scale by Natoli et al. (2021) tapping participants’ beliefs that drugs and antidepressants specifically are ineffective and promoted and prescribed for financial gains. Logistic and linear regression models were used to predict respondents’ vaccine uptake and doubts about antidepressants. Results Booster vaccine uptake was predicted by BD (OR = 1.45; p < .05) and CCBs (OR = .73 ; p < .05), together explaining 7% of the variance. Booster vaccine uptake was not predicted by CM. Doubts about antidepressant medication were predicted by CM ( b = .17, p < .001) but not BD ( p = .89), together explaining 10% of the variance. Conclusions The doubts students of medicine have about antidepressants and their vaccination behavior was predicted by their biological determinism, belief in conspiracy theories and general conspiracy mentality. Although the relationships were weak, they support claims that health-related beliefs and behaviors of students of medicine are related to their implicit beliefs and socio-cognitive predispositions. These personal factors may therefore affect their professional decision-making and should be addressed in medical education. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207