ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
(Mis)trust among patients seeking unproven stem cell therapies: a qualitative analysis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Introduction: The unproven stem cell intervention (SCI) industry markets stem cell products to patients navigating chronic and serious conditions who seek alternative options when conventional treatments no longer offer relief or improvement. This market is often characterized by providers using deceptive advertising to misinform potential consumers to seek stem cells that have not been shown to be safe and/or effective through clinical studies. Objective: This study examines how patients describe interpersonal and institutional trust in relation to their interest in and decisions about unproven SCIs among two distinct and divergent chronic disease patient groups: patients with little or no interest in unproven SCIs (low seekers) and those with high interest or have undertaken an unproven SCI (high seekers). Methods: A semi-structured interview guide was developed deductively and modified inductively based on the Unified Theory of Health Behavior. Qualitative interviews among 36 patients and carers were conduct and transcripts were analyzed using constant comparison based on the principles of grounded theory. Results: Trust varies across social contexts as low seekers expressed strong reservations about the commercialization elements of the SCI industry placing greater confidence in conventional medicine. In contrast, high seekers questioned the advice of conventional providers and motives of medical regulators. Across both, personal relationships were commonly described as influential in how participants evaluated unproven SCIs. Conclusion: These findings suggest that communication efforts in clinical settings should account for the relational and emotional dimensions of trust. Interventions aimed at countering misleading information and promoting informed choices should engage trusted messengers and address the broader social and psychological contexts in which patients may seek unproven SCIs.
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.