ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Public awareness and acceptance of xenotransplantation in China: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundXenotransplantation using genetically edited pig organs has been considered a promising solution to the global organ shortage. However, its successful implementation depends not only on scientific advance but also on public acceptance. Empirical evidence on public awareness, acceptance, and ethical concerns regarding xenotransplantation in China remains scarce. This study was conducted to investigate public familiarity with xenotransplantation, acceptance of the technology, and factors associated with acceptance.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among adults in mainland China based on a structured questionnaire. A convenience sampling strategy was adopted. Data regarding demographic characteristics, familiarity with xenotransplantation, acceptance under a life-saving scenario, religious considerations, and perceived impact on human organ donation were collected. Descriptive statistics, binary logistic regression, and ordinal logistic regression were used for analysis.
resultsA total of 589 valid questionnaires were analyzed. The majority of respondents (85.57%) had at least heard of xenotransplantation, although only 4.92% reported being very familiar. In a hypothetical life-saving scenario, 36.67% reported they would definitely accept xenotransplantation, while 11.54% would definitely not. Acceptance was higher among males, younger adults, medical workers, and those familiar with the technology, and lower among individuals with higher education or perceived religious conflict. Perceived religious conflict was significantly associated with acceptance (OR = 0.22, p < 0.01). Respondents with more optimistic expectations of xenotransplantation were more likely to perceive that it would weaken willingness to donate human organs (OR = 5.49, p < 0.01). The main public concerns included clinical trial safety (75%), postoperative outcomes (74%), and costs (63%).
conclusionsPublic familiarity with xenotransplantation in China remains limited, and acceptance is shaped by sociodemographic factors, religious beliefs, and familiarity with the technology. Transparent risk communication, culturally sensitive public engagement, and stratified information strategies are required to support responsible clinical translation into practice and ethical governance of xenotransplantation.
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.