ArticleThe patient2020
Beliefs and Values About Gene Therapy and In-Utero Gene Editing in Patients with Hemophilia and Their Relatives.
Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient, consumer and societal values, perceptions and preferences on high-cost gene therapies.Gene therapy · 2026Article
- Views of the Swiss public towards gene editing.PloS one · 2026Article
- Prenatal gene editing for neurodevelopmental diseases: Ethical considerations.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- Implementation of a gene therapy education initiative by the ASGCT and Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2023Article
- Acceptability of prenatal diagnosis and prenatal treatment of haemophilia using cell and gene therapies within US haemophilia community.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2023Article
- Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2022Article
- Patients' view on gene therapy development for lysosomal storage disorders: a qualitative study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Article
- Gene Therapy and Hemophilia: Where Do We Go from Here?Journal of blood medicine · 2022Review
- Perceptions and Recommendations Regarding Haemophilia B Gene Therapy: A Multistakeholder View From Patients, Caregivers and Healthcare Professionals.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of HemophiliaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimHemophilia is an inherited disease for which current treatment is noncurative. While gene therapy and gene editing are being researched, we do not know how the hemophilia community perceives them. Herein, we explore the beliefs and values regarding these new therapies in patients with hemophilia and their relatives.
methodsThis qualitative study used phone-based semi-structured interviews on 21 adult English-speaking patients with hemophilia A or B and their parents across the United States during March to July 2019. The study was advertised through different chapters of the Hemophilia Foundation. The interview guide included questions about participants' prior experience with hemophilia, and included two case scenarios about the use of gene therapy and in utero gene editing, after which participants were asked about their opinions, beliefs, and values on each scenario. We used a grounded theory approach and identified the main themes using an inductive process.
resultsWe interviewed 21 participants-12 patients and 9 mothers. Most of them had or were related to a patient with severe disease. The main themes discussed were related to efficacy, safety and financial concerns and insurance coverage for both gene therapy and in utero gene editing. Patients and their parents had expected outcomes in terms of durability of therapy and impact on emotional health and lifestyle changes in the long term. Gene therapy was more accepted among patients with severe and uncontrolled disease. In-utero gene editing was not completely accepted because of safety and ethical issues.
conclusionPatients with severe hemophilia perceive gene therapy as a potential cure, while gene editing was more controversial. Patients still have questions that remain to be answered regarding safety and efficacy that should be assessed with long-term follow up studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32794073What 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.