ArticlePloS one2025
Public perceptions and support for introduced microbes to combat hospital-acquired infections and antimicrobial resistance.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hospital-acquired infections and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) remain major global health threats, prompting interest in microbiome-based interventions that introduce beneficial microbes or genetic interventions to control pathogens and reduce AMR genes in hospital environments. Microbiome engineering, which can use advanced biotechnology, genetics, and microbial ecology principles to restructure microbial communities, is a rapidly growing field with applications in infection control. As researchers explore deploying beneficial microbes and other genetic interventions in clinical settings like hospital sinks, public perception becomes critical to responsible implementation. This study addresses how U.S. adults perceive microbiome evaluation, and education. Drawing on a nationally representative survey (N = 1,000), we conducted hierarchical ordinary least squares regression modeling to assess predictors of support across three domains: implementation of introduced microbiomes (IM), rigorous testing, and education for healthcare stakeholders. Results demonstrate that support for IM in hospital sinks is shaped less by demographic traits and more by emotional responses, trust in institutional efficacy, belief in intervention benefits, and a desire to learn about microbiome science. These findings advance previous knowledge by distinguishing cognitive, affective, and contextual predictors across distinct types of support. Contrary to expectations, prior familiarity and information-seeking were negatively associated with IM support, suggesting that some engagement or exposure to risk-framing may drive skepticism. Meanwhile, emotional reactions and perceived efficacy consistently predicted support for IM, testing, and education (i.e., across all dependent variables), underscoring the need to address affective and trust-based components of public engagement. This research contributes to an emerging empirical foundation for responsible microbiome innovation by grounding the analysis in the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) framework. With the technology still in early development, these insights provide critical guidance for biotechnology developers, policymakers, and hospital leaders seeking to align microbiome engineering with societal values through transparent communication, rigorous oversight, and inclusive education.
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.