Volume 28, Issue 2 (9-2025)
jha 2025, 28(2): 38-52 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Adibi P, Zare-Farashbandi F, Ghasabi F, Monajemi A, Soltani A, Hashemian M. Dimensions of health pseudoscience: a qualitative study. jha 2025; 28 (2) :38-52
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-4622-en.html
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-4622-en.html
Payman Adibi1 
, Firoozeh Zare-Farashbandi2 , Fatemeh Ghasabi3 , Alireza Monajemi4 , Akbar Soltani5 , Mohammadreza Hashemian6
, Firoozeh Zare-Farashbandi2 , Fatemeh Ghasabi3 , Alireza Monajemi4 , Akbar Soltani5 , Mohammadreza Hashemian6
1- Isfahan Gastroenterology and Hepatology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
2- Health Information Technology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
3- Department of Public Relations, University of Applied Science and Technology Center of Najafabad, Isfahan, Iran.
4- Virtual University of Medical Sciences, Department of Philosophy of Science and Technology, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS), Tehran,Iran. & Department of Medical Humanities, Virtual University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
5- Evidence Based Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
6- Department of Medical Librarianship and Information Sciences, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. ,mr.hashemian553@gmail.com
2- Health Information Technology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
3- Department of Public Relations, University of Applied Science and Technology Center of Najafabad, Isfahan, Iran.
4- Virtual University of Medical Sciences, Department of Philosophy of Science and Technology, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS), Tehran,Iran. & Department of Medical Humanities, Virtual University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
5- Evidence Based Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
6- Department of Medical Librarianship and Information Sciences, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. ,
Full-Text [PDF 998 kb]
(326 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (669 Views)
Discussion
Definitions and concepts
A precise and comprehensive definition of pseudoscience can establish clear boundaries between science and pseudoscience. DeRegt and Montecchi [15] emphasize the need to distinguishe pseudoscience from science from both theoretical and practical perspectives. They argue that incorrect pseudoscientific claims not only create perceptions of medical ineffectiveness but also erode public trust in evidence-based treatments. The definitional categories identified in this study align with those proposed in other pseudoscience research [16, 17]. A crucial aspect of pseudoscience's conceptual framework involves its methodological flaws, a perspective supported by additional studies [1, 18].
The lack of peer-reviewed publication represents a significant barrier to pseudoscience dissemination. Furthermore, insufficient scientific training among editors and media managers contributes to its spread [19]. Cortiñas-Rovira [18, 20] argues that science journalists bear partial responsibility for public science education and consequently play a vital role in countering pseudoscience. Intentionality constitutes another key conceptual element of pseudoscience. It frequently employs exaggerated claims designed to exploit fears or generate unrealistic hopes [21]. Boyer and Barrett [22] suggest that beliefs aligning with innate human expectations tend to achieve wider acceptance, explaining pseudoscience's success through its appeal to instinctive cognitive patterns [23]. Any comprehensive definition of pseudoscience must also include concepts such as non-applicability, non-universality, resistance to criticism, non-rationality, and reliance on anecdotal evidence. These findings corroborate Blancke et al.'s [24] characterization of pseudoscience as possessing intuitive appeal, superficial scientific trappings, and defensive mechanisms against critique.
Causes and ways of occurrence and spread
False advertising contributed significantly to the emergence and proliferation of pseudoscience. Undoubtedly, media exerts considerable influence on public perception [25]. Therefore, health policymakers must promote accurate scientific understanding by rigorously monitoring the dissemination of medical information through media channels. Cortiñas-Rovira [18] argues that inadequate regulation of pseudoscientific content in media is a critical issue, as it effectively normalizes pseudoscience within society. Personal motives such as emotional exploitation by fraudsters and the pursuit of financial gain or fame also drive the emergence of pseudoscience, align with Buskirk's observations [26]. Furthermore, widespread insufficient literacy facilitates dissemination of pseudoscience. This underscores the necessity for comprehensive information and health literacy education targeting all relevant stakeholder. Cortiñas-Rovira [18] identifies schools, universities, policymakers, and governments as key actors in countering pseudoscience.
Diagnosis methods
The study indicates that health professionals should both recognize the warning signs of pseudoscience and evaluate it using established scientific criteria. These results align with the research conducted by Cortiñas-Rovira [18] and Salvador-Mata [8].
Consequences and complications
Regarding economic consequences, participants reported significant financial losses among the public. These findings corroborate DeRegt and Montecchi's [15] earlier observations of pseudoscience economic impacts. Additionally, faculty members highlighted the erosion of scientific foundations as a key academic consequence of pseudoscience, consistent with DeRegt and Montecchi [15].
Management and mitigation strategies
Low literacy were identified as both a cause and a facilitator of pseudoscience emergence and spread. Consequently, promoting information literacy, health literacy, and critical thinking represents the most effective approach to enhancing public literacy and reduce pseudoscience spread. These educational strategies align with findings from prior studies [27, 28]. Additional countermeasures include enhancing academic education and incorporating evidence-based medical approaches into medical curricula. Cortiñas-Rovira [18] similarly advocates strengthening academic networks as a means to combat pseudoscience. Furthermore, integrating traditional medicine with modern medical practice through the inclusion of experienced traditional medicine faculty in universities may contribute to scientific advancement while preventing pseudoscientific dissemination [29]. Optimal prevention of pseudoscience may be achieved through strategic information dissemination. In today's media-saturated environment, where media platforms significantly influence public perception [30], distribution of accurate informationserves as a powerful deterrent against pseudoscience propagation.
Full-Text: (335 Views)
Introduction
The global spread of pseudoscience and its grwoing public acceptance have become a major concern in scientific communities [1]. Pseudoscience refers to claims that appear scientific but lack credible evidence and fail to meet established research standards [2]. Such claims often rely on non-replicable or fabricated data [3], diverting public attention from evidence-based facts toward unfounded beliefs [4]. Common examples include astrology, homeopathy, and various conspiracy theories [5].
In healthcare, pseudoscience poses particularly serious risks [6]. It can directly harm patients, sometimes with fatal consequences, while also undermining public trust in evidence-based medicine [7]. Despite significant scientific advancements, pseudoscience continues to threaten medical practice [3]. For example, Salvador-Mata's study [8] revealed surprisingly positive attitudes toward pseudoscience even among pharmacists. Similarly, Taschner et al. [9] documented widespread public belief in pseudoscientific treatments.
Torabi and Sotoudeh's research [10] emphasized the critical role of media literacy in shaping health behaviors and community well-being. Lilienfeld et al. [11] defined pseudoscience as assertions that mimic scientific claims while relying on anecdotal evidence rather than rigorous methodology. Alarmingly, these beliefs have infiltrated professional circles, where cognitive biases such as confirmation bias may lead to their acceptance [11]. This study aimed to systematically analyze the characteristics of health-related pseudoscience and develop practical strategies to counter its influence. By clarifying its conceptual framework and mechanisms of spread, we aim to contribute to more effective interventions in medical practice and public health education.
Methods
This qualitative study employed conventional content analysis. The research team used purposive sampling with maximum variation strategy to ensure comprehensive representation of key stakeholder perspectives, while maintaining diversity in gender, specialty, academic rank, and education level. Two primary inclusion criteria included: participants needed to possess relevant knowledge or experience with pseudoscience, and demonstrate willingness to participate in the research. From the initial pool of 39 invited individuals, 28 completed the study while 11 withdrew due to personal concerns or reluctance to discuss pseudoscience experiences. The final participants included four practicing physicians, five academic researchers in scientific fields, six media professionals, seven patients, and six individuals actively engaged in pseudoscientific practices.
Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews following established protocols. Before each interview, participants received the interview guidelines for review. Participants retained control over interview location, timing, and format, with sessions lasting between 15 to 60 minutes. The research team prioritized in-person interviews when feasible, recording audio only after securing explicit participant consent. All participants received assurances regarding confidentiality and their right to withdraw at any stage.
The analysis followed a systematic qualitative procedure. Researchers prepared verbatim transcripts and imported them into MAXQDA software (version 10) for coding and analysis. Data collection continued until reaching theoretical saturation was reached. The team counducted data collection and analysis concurrently throughout the study. To enhance validity, five participants engaged in member checking to review and validate preliminary findings. Researchers applied Lincoln and Guba's rigorous framework to ensure research quality across four dimensions. Credibility was achieved through prolonged engagement in data collection and member checking. Transferability was achieved by maximum variation sampling and detailed descriptions of the research context. Dependability was ensured through comprehensive documentation of all research processes. Confirmability was maintained by preserving a complete audit trail including raw data and analytical decisions, allowing for potential independent verification.
Results
The analysis revealed five core categories: (1) definitions and concepts, (2) causative factors and dissemination pathways, (3) diagnostic methodologies, (4) consequences and associated complications, and (5) management and mitigation strategies. Furthermore, cross-group analysis of perspectives from participants identified 19 distinct subcategories, as detailed in Table 1.
Table 1. Identified main and subcategories of pseudoscience
The global spread of pseudoscience and its grwoing public acceptance have become a major concern in scientific communities [1]. Pseudoscience refers to claims that appear scientific but lack credible evidence and fail to meet established research standards [2]. Such claims often rely on non-replicable or fabricated data [3], diverting public attention from evidence-based facts toward unfounded beliefs [4]. Common examples include astrology, homeopathy, and various conspiracy theories [5].
In healthcare, pseudoscience poses particularly serious risks [6]. It can directly harm patients, sometimes with fatal consequences, while also undermining public trust in evidence-based medicine [7]. Despite significant scientific advancements, pseudoscience continues to threaten medical practice [3]. For example, Salvador-Mata's study [8] revealed surprisingly positive attitudes toward pseudoscience even among pharmacists. Similarly, Taschner et al. [9] documented widespread public belief in pseudoscientific treatments.
Torabi and Sotoudeh's research [10] emphasized the critical role of media literacy in shaping health behaviors and community well-being. Lilienfeld et al. [11] defined pseudoscience as assertions that mimic scientific claims while relying on anecdotal evidence rather than rigorous methodology. Alarmingly, these beliefs have infiltrated professional circles, where cognitive biases such as confirmation bias may lead to their acceptance [11]. This study aimed to systematically analyze the characteristics of health-related pseudoscience and develop practical strategies to counter its influence. By clarifying its conceptual framework and mechanisms of spread, we aim to contribute to more effective interventions in medical practice and public health education.
Methods
This qualitative study employed conventional content analysis. The research team used purposive sampling with maximum variation strategy to ensure comprehensive representation of key stakeholder perspectives, while maintaining diversity in gender, specialty, academic rank, and education level. Two primary inclusion criteria included: participants needed to possess relevant knowledge or experience with pseudoscience, and demonstrate willingness to participate in the research. From the initial pool of 39 invited individuals, 28 completed the study while 11 withdrew due to personal concerns or reluctance to discuss pseudoscience experiences. The final participants included four practicing physicians, five academic researchers in scientific fields, six media professionals, seven patients, and six individuals actively engaged in pseudoscientific practices.
Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews following established protocols. Before each interview, participants received the interview guidelines for review. Participants retained control over interview location, timing, and format, with sessions lasting between 15 to 60 minutes. The research team prioritized in-person interviews when feasible, recording audio only after securing explicit participant consent. All participants received assurances regarding confidentiality and their right to withdraw at any stage.
The analysis followed a systematic qualitative procedure. Researchers prepared verbatim transcripts and imported them into MAXQDA software (version 10) for coding and analysis. Data collection continued until reaching theoretical saturation was reached. The team counducted data collection and analysis concurrently throughout the study. To enhance validity, five participants engaged in member checking to review and validate preliminary findings. Researchers applied Lincoln and Guba's rigorous framework to ensure research quality across four dimensions. Credibility was achieved through prolonged engagement in data collection and member checking. Transferability was achieved by maximum variation sampling and detailed descriptions of the research context. Dependability was ensured through comprehensive documentation of all research processes. Confirmability was maintained by preserving a complete audit trail including raw data and analytical decisions, allowing for potential independent verification.
Results
The analysis revealed five core categories: (1) definitions and concepts, (2) causative factors and dissemination pathways, (3) diagnostic methodologies, (4) consequences and associated complications, and (5) management and mitigation strategies. Furthermore, cross-group analysis of perspectives from participants identified 19 distinct subcategories, as detailed in Table 1.
Table 1. Identified main and subcategories of pseudoscience
| Categories | Subcategories |
| Definitions and concepts | Methodological disruption |
| Disruption in the publication and information process | |
| Intention | |
| Features | |
| Causative factors and dissemination pathways | Unrealistic advertising |
| Promotion and advertising method | |
| Goal | |
| Insufficient literacy | |
| Other factors |
Table 1.Continued
| Categories | Subcategories |
| Diagnosis methods | Experts |
| Evidence and documentation | |
| Consequences and complications | Health |
| Economic | |
| Scientific | |
| Management and mitigation strategies | General education |
| University education | |
| Critical thinking | |
| Appropriate information | |
| Supervision |
Discussion
Definitions and concepts
A precise and comprehensive definition of pseudoscience can establish clear boundaries between science and pseudoscience. DeRegt and Montecchi [15] emphasize the need to distinguishe pseudoscience from science from both theoretical and practical perspectives. They argue that incorrect pseudoscientific claims not only create perceptions of medical ineffectiveness but also erode public trust in evidence-based treatments. The definitional categories identified in this study align with those proposed in other pseudoscience research [16, 17]. A crucial aspect of pseudoscience's conceptual framework involves its methodological flaws, a perspective supported by additional studies [1, 18].
The lack of peer-reviewed publication represents a significant barrier to pseudoscience dissemination. Furthermore, insufficient scientific training among editors and media managers contributes to its spread [19]. Cortiñas-Rovira [18, 20] argues that science journalists bear partial responsibility for public science education and consequently play a vital role in countering pseudoscience. Intentionality constitutes another key conceptual element of pseudoscience. It frequently employs exaggerated claims designed to exploit fears or generate unrealistic hopes [21]. Boyer and Barrett [22] suggest that beliefs aligning with innate human expectations tend to achieve wider acceptance, explaining pseudoscience's success through its appeal to instinctive cognitive patterns [23]. Any comprehensive definition of pseudoscience must also include concepts such as non-applicability, non-universality, resistance to criticism, non-rationality, and reliance on anecdotal evidence. These findings corroborate Blancke et al.'s [24] characterization of pseudoscience as possessing intuitive appeal, superficial scientific trappings, and defensive mechanisms against critique.
Causes and ways of occurrence and spread
False advertising contributed significantly to the emergence and proliferation of pseudoscience. Undoubtedly, media exerts considerable influence on public perception [25]. Therefore, health policymakers must promote accurate scientific understanding by rigorously monitoring the dissemination of medical information through media channels. Cortiñas-Rovira [18] argues that inadequate regulation of pseudoscientific content in media is a critical issue, as it effectively normalizes pseudoscience within society. Personal motives such as emotional exploitation by fraudsters and the pursuit of financial gain or fame also drive the emergence of pseudoscience, align with Buskirk's observations [26]. Furthermore, widespread insufficient literacy facilitates dissemination of pseudoscience. This underscores the necessity for comprehensive information and health literacy education targeting all relevant stakeholder. Cortiñas-Rovira [18] identifies schools, universities, policymakers, and governments as key actors in countering pseudoscience.
Diagnosis methods
The study indicates that health professionals should both recognize the warning signs of pseudoscience and evaluate it using established scientific criteria. These results align with the research conducted by Cortiñas-Rovira [18] and Salvador-Mata [8].
Consequences and complications
Regarding economic consequences, participants reported significant financial losses among the public. These findings corroborate DeRegt and Montecchi's [15] earlier observations of pseudoscience economic impacts. Additionally, faculty members highlighted the erosion of scientific foundations as a key academic consequence of pseudoscience, consistent with DeRegt and Montecchi [15].
Management and mitigation strategies
Low literacy were identified as both a cause and a facilitator of pseudoscience emergence and spread. Consequently, promoting information literacy, health literacy, and critical thinking represents the most effective approach to enhancing public literacy and reduce pseudoscience spread. These educational strategies align with findings from prior studies [27, 28]. Additional countermeasures include enhancing academic education and incorporating evidence-based medical approaches into medical curricula. Cortiñas-Rovira [18] similarly advocates strengthening academic networks as a means to combat pseudoscience. Furthermore, integrating traditional medicine with modern medical practice through the inclusion of experienced traditional medicine faculty in universities may contribute to scientific advancement while preventing pseudoscientific dissemination [29]. Optimal prevention of pseudoscience may be achieved through strategic information dissemination. In today's media-saturated environment, where media platforms significantly influence public perception [30], distribution of accurate informationserves as a powerful deterrent against pseudoscience propagation.
Limitations
One limitation of this study was the inability to conduct some interviews in person or face-to-face due to participants' unwillingness or geographical distance. To address this issue, the researchers utilized free online platforms for virtual interviews while simultaneously recording the sessions. Additionally, this study faced the common limitations of qualitative research. To mitigate these challenges, the researchers dedicated sufficient time and attention to the process, consulted with experts during data analysis, and rigorously ensured the validity and reliability of the data at every stage.
Conclussion
This study conceptualizes pseudoscience as a pathological condition the requires systematic intervention. The proposed approach involves: (1) establishing clear conceptual definitions, (2) identifying underlying causes and mechanisms of spread, (3) developing diagnostic methods, (4) assessing potential consequences, and (5) implementing evidence-based strategies following comprehensive evaluation of coping mechanisms.
Declerations
Ethical considerations: This study was conducted in strict accordance with ethical principles for human research. The research protocol received formal approval from the Ethics Committee of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Approval Code: IR.AMS.REC.1401.016).
Funding: This study was financially supported by the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The sponsor had no role in data collection, data analysis, or writing of the article.
Conflicts of interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Authors’ contribution: P.A: Conceptualization, methodology, data analysis, data curation, supervision, final approval; F.ZF: Conceptualization, study design, methodology, data analysis, data curation, writing original draf, final approval; F.G: Data analysis, writing original draft; A.M: Conceptualization, study design, methodology, final approval; A.S: Conceptualization, study design, methodology, validation, final approval; MR.H: Conceptualization, study design, methodology, data analysis, data curation, writing original draf, final approval.
Consent for publication: None
Data availability: Data access is possible through the corresponding author.
AI deceleration: None
Acknowledgements: This article is part of a research project entitled "Explanation of the Accurate Scientific Information Cycle Model in the Applied Field of Health and Its Pathology", which was approved in 1401 with code 240245 by the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
One limitation of this study was the inability to conduct some interviews in person or face-to-face due to participants' unwillingness or geographical distance. To address this issue, the researchers utilized free online platforms for virtual interviews while simultaneously recording the sessions. Additionally, this study faced the common limitations of qualitative research. To mitigate these challenges, the researchers dedicated sufficient time and attention to the process, consulted with experts during data analysis, and rigorously ensured the validity and reliability of the data at every stage.
Conclussion
This study conceptualizes pseudoscience as a pathological condition the requires systematic intervention. The proposed approach involves: (1) establishing clear conceptual definitions, (2) identifying underlying causes and mechanisms of spread, (3) developing diagnostic methods, (4) assessing potential consequences, and (5) implementing evidence-based strategies following comprehensive evaluation of coping mechanisms.
Declerations
Ethical considerations: This study was conducted in strict accordance with ethical principles for human research. The research protocol received formal approval from the Ethics Committee of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Approval Code: IR.AMS.REC.1401.016).
Funding: This study was financially supported by the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The sponsor had no role in data collection, data analysis, or writing of the article.
Conflicts of interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Authors’ contribution: P.A: Conceptualization, methodology, data analysis, data curation, supervision, final approval; F.ZF: Conceptualization, study design, methodology, data analysis, data curation, writing original draf, final approval; F.G: Data analysis, writing original draft; A.M: Conceptualization, study design, methodology, final approval; A.S: Conceptualization, study design, methodology, validation, final approval; MR.H: Conceptualization, study design, methodology, data analysis, data curation, writing original draf, final approval.
Consent for publication: None
Data availability: Data access is possible through the corresponding author.
AI deceleration: None
Acknowledgements: This article is part of a research project entitled "Explanation of the Accurate Scientific Information Cycle Model in the Applied Field of Health and Its Pathology", which was approved in 1401 with code 240245 by the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Medical Librarianship and Information Science
Received: 2025/02/9 | Accepted: 2025/09/3 | Published: 2025/09/24
Received: 2025/02/9 | Accepted: 2025/09/3 | Published: 2025/09/24
References
1. García‐Arch J, Ballestero‐Arnau M, Pérez Hoyas L, Giaiotti F. Disproven but still believed: the role of information and individual differences in the prediction of topic‐related pseudoscience acceptance. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2022;36(2):268-82. [DOI:10.1002/acp.3914]
2. Shermer M. Science and pseudoscience. philosophy of pseudoscience reconsidering the demarcation problem. 2013, 203-23. [DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0012]
3. Jakovljević M, Ostojić L. Science and pseudoscience in medicine: evidence-based vs. evidence-biased medicine. Psychiatria Danubina. 2016; suppl. (2): 2-6. [DOI:10.5455/aim.2016.24.284-299]
4. Ghadimi A, Safavi B. The importance of popularization of science in the decline pseudo-science in the covid-19 era. Rahyaft Journal. 2020;30(79):25-36. [In Persian]. [DOI:10.22034/RAHYAFT.2020.13856]
5. Pena MM, Klemfuss JZ, Loftus EF, Mindthoff A. The effects of exposure to differing amounts of misinformation and source credibility perception on source monitoring and memory accuracy. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2017;4(4):337. [DOI:10.1037/cns0000137]
6. White E. Science, pseudoscience, and the frontline practitioner: the vaccination/autism debate. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work. 2014;11(3):269-74. [DOI:10.1080/15433714.2012.759470]
7. Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D. Reducing health misinformation in science: a call to arms. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2022; 700(1): 124-35. [DOI:10.1177/00027162221087686]
8. Salvador-Mata B, Cortiñas-Rovira S. Pharmacists' attitudes to and perceptions of pseudoscience: how pseudoscience operates in health and social communication. Social Work in Public Health. 2020;35(5):321-33. [DOI:10.1080/19371918.2020.1785983]
9. Taschner NP, Orsi C, Almeida P, Pilati R. The impact of personal pseudoscientific beliefs in the pursuit for non-evidence-based health care. Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare. 2021;3:e3516-e. [DOI:10.17267/2675-021Xevidence.2021.e3516]
10. Torabi M, Sotudeh H. The role of risk perception and ability to detect fake news in acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine among students of Shiraz University, Iran. Health Information Management. 2022;18(6):265-71. [DOI:10.22122/him.v18i1.4440]
11. Lilienfeld SO. Pseudoscience in contemporary clinical psychology: what it is and what we can do about it. The Clinical Psychologist. 1998;51(4):3-9. [DOI:10.5040/9780761875857.ch-14]
12. Polit DF, Beck CT. International differences in nursing research, 2005-2006. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2009;41(1):44-53. [DOI:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01250.x]
13. Creswell JW, Hanson WE, Clark Plano VL, Morales A. Qualitative research designs: selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist. 2007;35(2):236-64. 10.1177/0011000006287390 14. Boswell C, Cannon S. Introduction to nursing 14. Boswell C, Cannon S. Introduction to nursing research: incorporating evidence-based practice: incorporating evidence-based practice: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2018.
10.1177/0011000006287390 []
14. De Regt A, Montecchi M, Lord Ferguson S. A false image of health: how fake news and pseudo-facts spread in the health and beauty industry. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 2020;29(2):168-79. [DOI:10.1108/JPBM-12-2018-2180]
15. Hansson SO. Defining pseudoscience and science. philosophy of pseudoscience:reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2013.p. 61-77. [DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0005]
16. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Sanford University; 2002. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu
17. Cortiñas-Rovira S, Alonso-Marcos F, Pont-Sorribes C, Escribà-Sales E. Science journalists' perceptions and attitudes to pseudoscience in Spain. Public Understanding of Science. 2015;24(4):450-65. [DOI:10.1177/0963662514558991]
18. Lee CM, Hunsley J. Evidence-based practice: separating science from pseudoscience. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 2015;60(12): 534-40. [DOI:10.1177/070674371506001203]
19. Lubens P. Journalists and public health professionals: challenges of a symbiotic relationship. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9(1):59-63. [DOI:10.1017/dmp.2014.127]
20. Mermelstein S, German TC. Counterintuitive pseudoscience propagates by exploiting the mind's communication evaluation mechanisms. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:739070. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.739070]
21. Boyer P, Barrett HC. Domain specificity and intuitive ontology. The handbook of evolutionary Psychology. 2015:96-118. [DOI:10.1002/9780470939376.ch3]
22. Boudry M, Blancke S, Pigliucci M. What makes weird beliefs thrive? the epidemiology of pseudoscience. Philosophical Psychology. 2015;28(8):1177-98. [DOI:10.1080/09515089.2014.971946]
23. Blancke S, Boudry M, Pigliucci M. Why do irrational beliefs mimic science? the cultural evolution of pseudoscience. Theoria. 2017;83(1):78-97. [DOI:10.1111/theo.12109]
24. Rapp DN, Withall MM. Confidence as a metacognitive contributor to and consequence of misinformation experiences. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2024;55:101735. [DOI:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101735]
25. Buskirk AR. Science, pseudoscience, and religious belief. The FARMS Review. 2005;17(1):273-309. [DOI:10.5406/farmsreview.17.1.0273]
26. Standing LG, Huber H. Do psychology courses reduce belief in psychological myths? Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal. 2003;31(6):585-92. [DOI:10.2224/sbp.2003.31.6.585]
27. Wilson JA. Reducing pseudoscientific and paranormal beliefs in university students through a course in science and critical thinking. Science & Education. 2018;27:183-210. [DOI:10.1007/s11191-018-9956-0]
28. Jansen C, Baker JD, Kodaira E, Ang L, Bacani AJ, Aldan JT, et al. Medicine in motion: opportunities, challenges and data analytics-based solutions for traditional medicine integration into western medical practice. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 2021;267:113477. [DOI:10.1016/j.jep.2020.113477]
29. Ericson RV. How journalists visualize fact. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 1998;560(1):83-95. [DOI:10.1177/0002716298560001007]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Site Keywords
Health, Administration, Scientific Article, Iran University of Medical Sciences,
