ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2009
'Not taken in by media hype': how potential donors, recipients and members of the general public perceive stem cell research.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Patient and Expert Perceptions of the Attainment of Research Milestones in Parkinson's Disease.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2021Article
- Hype and public trust in science.Science and engineering ethics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundViews of embryo donors, scientists and members of the general public on embryonic stem cell research (eSCR) have been widely reported. Less is known about views of potential beneficiaries of stem cell therapy and the influence of media 'hype' on perceptions of eSCR among different groups of stakeholders. This study aimed to examine the perceptions of members of the general public as well as two patient groups likely to benefit from eSCR and to explore the role of the media in shaping these views.
methodsA qualitative study carried out in Aberdeen, Scotland included 15 people living with Parkinson's disease (PD), 15 people living with diabetes mellitus (DM), 15 couples with infertility and 21 members of the general public who volunteered for the study. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using grounded theory.
resultsThe two patient groups likely to benefit from eSCR in the future differed in their knowledge (mainly gained from the media) and understanding of eSCR. Those living with PD were older, more debilitated and better informed than those with DM who showed limited interest in potential future benefits of eSCR. Infertile couples learnt about eSCR from health professionals who explained the process of embryo donation to them, and had sought no further information. Most of the general public had accessed information on eSCR and believed themselves to be more discerning than others because of their objectivity, intelligence and 'scientific awareness'. Although, the media and internet were primary sources of information for all except couples with infertility, members of all four groups claimed not to be taken in by the media 'hype' surrounding eSCR.
conclusionsThose who expected to benefit from eSCR in the future as well as members of the general public differ in their susceptibility to media 'hype', while believing that they are not taken in by exaggerated claims of benefits. As respondents were a selected group who were not drawn from a representative sample, the findings cannot be generalized to a wider population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.