ArticlePloS one2026
Phage therapy for recurrent urinary tract infections: A qualitative study using the theoretical framework of acceptability.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the anticipated acceptability of bacteriophage therapy for recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) among key stakeholders in the United Kingdom, using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).
designQualitative study using online focus groups, analysed with reflexive thematic analysis, and mapped to the constructs of the TFA.
settingUnited Kingdom, conducted online via Microsoft Teams.
participantsForty-four participants across three stakeholder groups: individuals with lived experience of rUTIs, doctors involved in UTI management, and other healthcare professionals (HCPs: specialist nurses, pharmacists, and advanced care practitioners).
resultsParticipants demonstrated high enthusiasm for phage therapy, reflecting positive affective attitude and strong perceptions of effectiveness. For patients with lived experience, enthusiasm was often grounded in desperation following repeated treatment failure, raising ethical concerns around vulnerability to poor-quality research or inequitable access. Across groups, opportunity costs were identified as key barriers, centred on financial impact and availability within the NHS. Gaps in understanding about mechanisms, safety, and delivery highlighted the importance of intervention coherence and, for doctors and other HCPs, self-efficacy. Lived experience participants described strong online communities that acted as informal knowledge networks, suggesting a potential channel for dissemination and education.
conclusionsPhage therapy was broadly viewed as acceptable, but acceptability is conditional on evidence of safety and effectiveness, equitable access, and clear communication. Application of the TFA demonstrated how enthusiasm, vulnerability, cost, and coherence intersect to shape overall perceptions. These findings emphasise the importance of ethical safeguards, patient-centred education, and integration with community networks to support the responsible adoption of phage therapy.
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.