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. ,
Abstract: (468 Views)
Introduction: Pseudoscience refere to claims that appear scientific but lack reliable research support, posing risks to public health and undermining trust in evidence-based medicine. This study aimed to identify key concepts of pseudoscience in healthcare and explore strategies to mitigate its influence. Its objectives are to clarify the conceptual and semantic relationships associated with health pseudoscience and propose methods to reduce its spread.
Methods: This qualitative study employed conventional content analysis. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling and included physicians, medical faculty members, science experts, media professionals, patients, and individuals involved with pseudoscientific practices. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
Results: The research identified five primary categories: 1) definitions and concepts, 2) causes and mechanisms of occurrence and spread, 3) diagnostic methods, 4) consequences and complications, and 5) coping and management strategies. Analysis of perspectives revealed 19 subcategories.
Conclusion: This study examines health pseudoscience as a complex challange affecting social, cognitive, and public health systems. The findings suggest that effectively addressing this phenomenon requires five essential steps: 1) defining the issue, 2) identifying causative factors, 3) ensuring timely diagnosis, 4) assessing its consequences, and 5) implementing integrated strategies.
Methods: This qualitative study employed conventional content analysis. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling and included physicians, medical faculty members, science experts, media professionals, patients, and individuals involved with pseudoscientific practices. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
Results: The research identified five primary categories: 1) definitions and concepts, 2) causes and mechanisms of occurrence and spread, 3) diagnostic methods, 4) consequences and complications, and 5) coping and management strategies. Analysis of perspectives revealed 19 subcategories.
Conclusion: This study examines health pseudoscience as a complex challange affecting social, cognitive, and public health systems. The findings suggest that effectively addressing this phenomenon requires five essential steps: 1) defining the issue, 2) identifying causative factors, 3) ensuring timely diagnosis, 4) assessing its consequences, and 5) implementing integrated strategies.
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,
