ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Public funding for mitochondrial donation: An Australian public deliberation.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMitochondrial donation (MD) is a reproductive technique that aims to allow individuals at-risk of having a child with mitochondrial DNA disease avoid this outcome. Research to inform possible clinical use of MD is underway in Australia and births following the use of this technique have been announced in the United Kingdom. However, how the availability of MD will be funded in the mid- to long-term remains uncertain. One factor impacting funding decisions is public sentiment, yet there is scant evidence globally regarding attitudes toward MD funding. We sought to discern attitudes of informed members of the Australian public to how the provision of MD should be funded.
methodsWe held three community juries to gauge public views on how MD should be funded. A community jury involves providing a diverse group of citizens with expert testimony and facilitating deliberation to arrive at a position.
resultsForty-two jurors participated across three juries. All juries voted by majority to support public funding for MD. Each jury made slightly different funding choices: one preferred full public funding, another preferred co-payment, while the third was divided among full public funding, co-payment, and no public funding. Reasons in favour of public funding comprised value for money, equity (i.e., the fair and just distribution of MD) and promoting innovation. Reasons against were opportunity cost, that MD wasn't necessary, and ethical objections to MD. Jurors also devised conditions for future funding: external review, capped services, better funding for alternative interventions and means testing.
conclusionsShould the current Australian MD research trial enable clinical provision, assuming that our participants' views are consistent with those of most Australians when informed of the trade-offs, benefits and costs, then it is likely that there will be strong public support for governments to fund access. However, some people may object to this expenditure.
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.