FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2977886471> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2977886471 endingPage "1186" @default.
• W2977886471 startingPage "1171" @default.
• W2977886471 abstract "<p id=C2>Mistrust between doctors and patients is a worldwide concern, especially in China. Among all possible driving factors, the knowledge gap between the two groups plays a key role in the formation of disparate cognitive styles between professional medical workers and laymen. If patients can be educated effectively and prompted to think like experts, they can become more compliant during medical treatment and more tolerant of unexpected diagnosis or treatment results, thus maintaining their trust in doctors. One possible effective way to make patients think like doctors is to conduct knowledge revision in health and medicine, a method that is counterintuitive to ordinary people but familiar to doctors. This process can be facilitated by the adoption of refutation texts, which state previously acquired but incorrect knowledge and then directly refute the wrong information while providing the correct knowledge. In the present set of experiments, we systematically examined the effect and underlying mechanism of refutation texts under medical situations. Refutation texts were constructed in the pilot study. The texts consisted of five items that were familiar to doctors but peculiar and interesting to laymen. After asking 103 college students to guess “True” or “False” on each question, correct answers were provided for the participants. Subsequently, they were asked to assess if these answers prompted them to reflect that their previous beliefs were incorrect. At least 97 participants (94.2%) made one error in the test, and 81 participants (78.6%) admitted that this process prompted a reflection on their previous beliefs, a result that proved the effectiveness of refutation texts. Study 1 was designed to test the effect of refutation texts constructed in the pilot study on patient’s trust and moral judgment on doctors using a 2 (intervention: with or without refutation texts) × 2 (compliance: following doctors’ instruction or not) × 2 (check result: common fever or leukemia) between-subject design. Participants were randomly assigned those eight conditions. First, participants were required to read a scenario of doctor-patient dialogue discussing whether bone marrow puncture (BMP) should be applied to a child. Then, they were required to guess the compliance of the child’s father before they were given the different combinations of the father’s decision and medical results. Participants were required to judge the intention of the doctor’s suggestion of BMP and assess how much trust they have in doctors. Results confirmed the significant effect of refutation texts on the participants’ trust and moral judgment. Participants who were provided refutation texts had higher trust scores and were more likely to judge the doctor’s intention positively and unselfishly compared with those who were not provided such texts. The medical inspection results influenced the participants’ judgment style and trust level. When the inspection showed a minor symptom, participants tended to show lower trust in the doctor and had negative attitude toward the doctor’s suggestion. Study 2 tested the chain mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and tolerance on medical workers. The same procedure as in Study 1 was used, except that participants’ scores were collected using the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale and Tolerance on Medical Worker’s Questionnaire. Data were analyzed by using Process Plugin. Results showed a chain mediation effect on moral judgment but failed to confirm the same effect on trust. Moreover, Study 3 confirmed the effectiveness of refutation texts under non-medical-related situations and the chain mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and tolerance on medical workers’ trust. Our findings demonstrated the effectiveness of refutation texts in prompting laymen’s knowledge revision and reflection on their existing health beliefs. This result will improve the tolerance on unexpected treatment consequences and the doctors’ possible misdiagnosis, thus sustaining trust in the doctor. On the basis of our results, we recommend that odd but interesting knowledge of the human body and counter-intuitive medical facts can be employed as routine material in patient education to foster a reflexive attitude on possible unsatisfactory diagnosis or treatment results. Future research may construct more useful refutation text items and further explore the possible hindering effect of previous health beliefs and negative emotions of medical refutation texts." @default.
• W2977886471 created "2019-10-10" @default.
• W2977886471 creator A5029435082 @default.
• W2977886471 creator A5029860081 @default.
• W2977886471 creator A5076710960 @default.
• W2977886471 date "2019-11-01" @default.
• W2977886471 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2977886471 title "Effect and underlying mechanism of refutation texts on the trust and moral judgment of patients" @default.
• W2977886471 cites W1968159500 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W1983437056 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W1992988993 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W1994458586 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W1995031937 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2016418241 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2022564137 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2067377722 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2069273382 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2075078671 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2108765916 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2116926372 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2119881377 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2131568786 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2281498113 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2288847366 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2323368791 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2583782996 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2613757174 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2750641773 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2889317836 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W2903110104 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W4242017092 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W4246855866 @default.
• W2977886471 cites W45380777 @default.
• W2977886471 doi "https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1041.2019.01171" @default.
• W2977886471 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2977886471 type Work @default.
• W2977886471 sameAs 2977886471 @default.
• W2977886471 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2977886471 countsByYear W29778864712021 @default.
• W2977886471 countsByYear W29778864712022 @default.
• W2977886471 countsByYear W29778864712023 @default.
• W2977886471 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2977886471 hasAuthorship W2977886471A5029435082 @default.
• W2977886471 hasAuthorship W2977886471A5029860081 @default.
• W2977886471 hasAuthorship W2977886471A5076710960 @default.
• W2977886471 hasBestOaLocation W29778864711 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C101097943 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C177264268 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConcept C89611455 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C101097943 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C111472728 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C118552586 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C138885662 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C151730666 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C15744967 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C169900460 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C177264268 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C199360897 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C2777267654 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C41008148 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C77805123 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C86803240 @default.
• W2977886471 hasConceptScore W2977886471C89611455 @default.
• W2977886471 hasIssue "10" @default.
• W2977886471 hasLocation W29778864711 @default.
• W2977886471 hasOpenAccess W2977886471 @default.
• W2977886471 hasPrimaryLocation W29778864711 @default.
• W2977886471 hasRelatedWork W1978776355 @default.
• W2977886471 hasRelatedWork W1988185375 @default.
• W2977886471 hasRelatedWork W2067443318 @default.
• W2977886471 hasRelatedWork W2075959928 @default.
• W2977886471 hasRelatedWork W2121551788 @default.
• W2977886471 hasRelatedWork W2166481065 @default.
• W2977886471 hasRelatedWork W2369566408 @default.
• W2977886471 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2977886471 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2977886471 hasRelatedWork W4233182480 @default.
• W2977886471 hasVolume "51" @default.
• W2977886471 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2977886471 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2977886471 magId "2977886471" @default.
• W2977886471 workType "article" @default.