Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41695295›Full record

ArticleOpen research Europe2025

Public perceptions and willingness to accept somatic gene therapy: A Belgian survey study.

Phaedra Locquet, Margaux Reckelbus, Eva Van Steijvoort, Pascal Borry, Bram Korbmacher, Sofie Gordts, Lauren Vanceer, Isabelle Huys

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open research Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Phaedra Locquet *Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, 3000, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1689-1475
Margaux Reckelbus *Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, 3000, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1148-3130
Eva Van SteijvoortDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, 3000, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3134-4028
Pascal BorryDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, 3000, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4931-9560
Bram KorbmacherDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, 3000, Belgium.
Sofie GordtsDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, 3000, Belgium.
Lauren VanceerDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, 3000, Belgium.
Isabelle HuysDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, 3000, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Genetic disorders affect millions worldwide, yet fewer than 10% of patients currently receive effective treatment. While gene therapies offer significant promise, their clinical translation is hindered by technical, regulatory, and societal challenges. Low enrolment rates in clinical trials, ethical concerns surrounding inclusion criteria, and uncertainty about preventive applications all contribute to slow progress. Public perception plays a crucial role in shaping trial participation and the integration of gene therapies into healthcare systems. This study examines public attitudes in Belgium to support the responsible development and implementation of gene therapy trials. Methodology: A cross-sectional online survey using convenience sampling was conducted in Belgium with adults (18+) recruited through local pharmacies. The survey included 12 items assessing self-reported knowledge of gene therapy and willingness to accept gene therapy. To evaluate willingness to accept, hypothetical vignettes were used, which varied by treatment characteristics (e.g., side effects, efficacy, limited evidence), patient age (5, 20, 65 years), and symptomatic status (symptomatic, asymptomatic with uncertain or expected future symptoms). Descriptive statistics summarised all items included in the questionnaire. Results: The sample included 289 participants, of whom 67% had completed higher education, 64% had children, and 87% had heard of gene therapy before. Overall willingness was high. Attitudes were generally positive, with limited concerns about its experimental features (e.g., unknown side effects (12%), long-term effects (8%), and uncertain effectiveness (8%)). However, key barriers included fears of altered identity (39%), external pressure (38%), and skepticism about its novelty (31%). Uncertainty about symptom development consistently reduced willingness. Patients' age played a secondary role, with younger individuals generally receiving higher support for gene therapy than older adults. Conclusion: Public attitudes toward gene therapy were largely positive, guided by perceived benefits over scientific certainty. Support favored curative over preventive use, with participants balancing autonomy and medical guidance in shared decision-making.

Indexed as

curative therapiesethicsGene therapypublic acceptance

Identifiers

PMID41695295
PMCPMC12905533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.