Public Awareness and Perceptions of Stem Cell Therapy for Stroke: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Background Stroke remains a leading cause of death and long-term disability. Although stem cell-based approaches are being investigated as possible regenerative strategies for stroke, public perceptions of their potential benefits, risks, mechanisms, and clinical use are not well-characterized. This exploratory survey described responses to an investigator-developed questionnaire about stem cell therapy for stroke. Methods A 10-item cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed electronically through Google Forms (Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA) to 36 individuals in a convenience sample; 26 completed questionnaires were received (response rate: 72.2%). The questionnaire was investigator-developed and was not validated as a measure of factual knowledge, clinical efficacy, or safety. Responses were categorized as "yes," "no," or "maybe"; one item used time-based response categories. Counts and percentages were calculated using the total number of completed questionnaires as the denominator. The survey was independently conducted as a student-led summer academic project and did not undergo review by an institutional review board, school ethics committee, or independent ethics authority. Results Twenty-six responses were analyzed. For the item asking whether embryonic stem cells are effective in stroke treatment, eight respondents (30.77%) selected "yes," 16 (61.54%) selected "maybe," and two (7.69%) selected "no." For the item asking whether stem cell treatment has advantages for stroke, 21 respondents (80.77%) selected "yes," four (15.38%) selected "maybe," and one (3.85%) selected "no." "Maybe" was the majority or joint-most-frequent response for six of 10 items, including items about animal testing, adverse effects, alternative regenerative treatments, and use during pregnancy. Conclusions In this small convenience sample, responses to an investigator-developed questionnaire suggested favorable perceptions of possible benefits of stem cell therapy for stroke, alongside frequent uncertainty about safety, mechanisms, the timing of improvement, and use in special populations. Because the questionnaire was not validated as a factual-knowledge instrument, findings should be interpreted strictly as descriptive perceptions rather than as evidence of respondents' medical knowledge, treatment confidence, or the clinical efficacy or safety of stem cell therapy. Larger studies using validated instruments and representative sampling are needed.