Public optimism towards nanomedicine

Bottini, Massimo; Gloria, F; Adanti, Sara; Corradino, Nunziella; Bergamaschi, Antonio; Magrini, Andrea

doi:10.2147/ijn.s26340

Cited by 33 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2 In our study, more than half of the respondents agreed that more money should be made available for the development of genetic tests, and this percentage had not changed 27 and in particular toward the application in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of disease ('nanomedicine'). 28 It has also been shown that in contrast to more controversial biotechnological developments such as animal cloning and GM foods, higher levels of familiarity and engagement with nanotechnology over time significantly reduces worry. 29 The question remains how attitudes towards genetic testing are formed and changed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public attitudes towards genetic testing revisited: comparing opinions between 2002 and 2010

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ten years after the Human Genome Project, medicine is still waiting for many of the promised benefits, and experts have tempered their high expectations. Public opinion on genetic testing has generally been favourable but is this still the case? The aim of this study is to compare public experiences, beliefs and expectations concerning genetic testing over the years (2002 vs 2010). A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted using the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel in 2002 and 2010. Responses to questions in identical wording were compared. In 2002 and 2010, 817 (63%) and 978 (70%) members responded, respectively. Awareness and reported use of genetic tests remained stable over time. In 2010, more respondents expected genetic testing to become more widely applied, believed that knowledge about the genetic background of disease helps people live longer, and that testing should be promoted more intensively. In 2010, they were also more interested in their own genetic make-up. On the one hand, the concern that a dichotomy would emerge between people with 'good genes' and 'bad genes' was higher. On the other hand, respondents thought that insurance companies would be less likely to demand a genetic test in order to calculate health insurance premiums. In conclusion, the results suggest that in 8 years, expectations of benefits and potential use of genetic testing have been raised among the public, resulting in more positive opinions. Worries on inequity remain, although worries about premium differentiation by insurance companies have decreased.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public attitudes towards genetic testing revisited: comparing opinions between 2002 and 2010

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They worry more about the environmental and societal risks rather than the health issues. However, people with high education, cared more about the health issues [9]. In Singapore, public were asked about the knowledge of nanotechnology, almost 80% of the respondents, have some understanding about nanotechnology [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(A little, some, and a lot) (8) Do you think public has awareness about application of nanotechnology used in the fi eld of medicine? (Strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree) (9) At present, is nanomedicine effectively used in the fi eld of medicine? (Yes and no) (10) According to your knowledge does nano based treatment cause any long-term side effect?…”

Section: Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanomedicine awareness among medical students in Saudi Arabia

Albraidi

Al-Haddab

2018

Nanopages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Objectives: The study's aim was to assess the medical students' knowledge and understanding of concepts related to basic nanotechnology and its applications in nanomedicine among medical students at King Saud University. Methods: An observational cross-sectional study was carried out by using an online questionnaire that was sent to all the medical students studying at King Saud University during the summer of 2016 July-August. The sample size of the study was 162 medical students. The questionnaire consisted of 11 items, including both fi xed and free answer-type questions. The questionnaire was sent to 1413 medical students, with a response percentage of 8.72%. Results: Students' perception of the basic nanotechnology was assessed, 63.0% (n = 102) of the students identifi ed the correct defi nition of nanoparticle size. Unfortunately, only 40.7% (n = 66) of the students heard about nanomedicine. Most of the information sources where from university 25.3%, 24.1% from internet, and 11% from television. 81.8% of our medical students, had little knowledge about the risk-benefi ts of nanomedicine. Interestingly, about 72.8% (n = 118) of the students think that nanotechnology is not effectively used in the medical fi eld. Conclusion: Medical students at king Saud university, showed that they have inadequate knowledge about nanotechnology and its applications in nanomedicine. Nanomedicine education should be implemented in the curriculum of the medical colleges in Saudi Arabia, to improve the awareness and future involvement in nanomedicine.

show abstract

“…13 Few studies, however, have examined responses to nanomedicine applications as part of health care delivery. [17][18][19] A study on perceptions of nanotechnologies and nanomedicine as displayed in social media revealed that nanomedicine is expected by most users to have an economic impact and that nearly 50% of users consider theranostics to be the optimal nanomedicine application. 19 It has also been found that a medication's frequency of administration can have a greater impact on attitude toward a treatment than whether a treatment is of a nano-nature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As with nanotechnologies in general, nanomedicine technologies appear to be associated with public optimism tinged with concerns relating not just to health but also to impacts on the environment and on social considerations. 18 A big picture has emerged for impact perception and acceptance in relation to nanomedicine, but the lack of data on the acceptability of specific applications raises important questions about developments in this field. Will these technologies and their applications conform to individual and societal values?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The acceptability of nanocarriers for drug delivery in different contexts of use: perceptions of researchers and research trainees in the field of new technologies

Chenel¹,

Boissy²,

Poirier³

et al. 2015

IJN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite marked optimism in the field of nanomedicine about the use of drug-delivery nanocarriers, uncertainties exist concerning nanocarriers’ possible unintended impacts and effects. These uncertainties could affect user acceptance and acceptability. “Acceptance” refers to the intention to put a technology or a device to a specified use. “Acceptability” refers to a value judgment that accounts for acceptance. The objectives of this study were to characterize impact perception, acceptance, and acceptability in relation to drug-delivery nanocarriers in different contexts of use, and to explore relationships among these concepts. Methods A sample of European and Canadian researchers and graduate research trainees active in the field of new technologies was recruited by targeted email invitation for participation in a web-based questionnaire study. The questionnaire presented scenarios for two contexts of use (lung cancer, seasonal flu) of drug-delivery nanocarriers with two compositions (carbon, synthetic DNA). Respondents’ impact perception, acceptance, and acceptability judgment in relation to each kind of nanocarrier in each context of use were measured with Likert scale questions and scored using categorical values. Results Two hundred and fourteen researchers and graduate research trainees completed the questionnaire. The results showed that nanocarrier composition influenced impact perception: as compared with the carbon nanocarrier impact perception, the positive impacts of the synthetic DNA nanocarrier were perceived as more significant and more likely to occur than its negative impacts. Composition did not influence acceptance or acceptability. Context of use significantly influenced acceptance and acceptability of both kinds of nanocarriers: researchers were more likely to accept the use of nanocarriers to treat lung cancer than the seasonal flu. The results also showed a significant relationship between acceptance and the perceived usefulness of the treatments. Conclusion Nanocarrier composition does not appear to influence acceptance or acceptability. On the other hand, the nanocarriers’ perceived usefulness and context of use are both major factors in accounting for acceptance and acceptability.

show abstract

Public optimism towards nanomedicine

Cited by 33 publications

References 26 publications

Public attitudes towards genetic testing revisited: comparing opinions between 2002 and 2010

Public attitudes towards genetic testing revisited: comparing opinions between 2002 and 2010

Nanomedicine awareness among medical students in Saudi Arabia

The acceptability of nanocarriers for drug delivery in different contexts of use: perceptions of researchers and research trainees in the field of new technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About