ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Public perception of health technologies: an exploratory spatial mapping of risks, benefits, and value attributions.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Purpose: The social acceptance of health technologies is crucial for the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare systems amid the demographic change. However, patients' acceptance, which shapes technology use and compliance, is still insufficiently understood. Methods: In this study, we explore how perceived risks and perceived benefits relate to attributed value as a proxy for social acceptance. Unlike most studies that focus on individual technologies, we measure public perception of 20 very different types of health technologies-ranging from plaster cast and x-Ray to insulin pumps, bionic limbs, and mRNA vaccines. Through an online survey utilizing a convenience sample of 193 participants from Germany and Bulgaria, we assessed perceived risks, benefits, and overall value attributed to these technologies. The study presents a visual mapping of the technologies and investigates the individual and technology-related factors shaping these perceptions. Results: The findings suggest that perceived benefit is the strongest predictor for overall value ( Conclusion: We conclude with recommendations for effectively communicating the benefits and risks of health technologies to the public, mitigating biases, and enhancing social acceptance and integration into healthcare systems.
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.