Contact us for more information: an analysis of public enquiries about stem cells

Participatory Design and Evaluation of the "Stem Cells Australia" Website for Delivering Complex Health Knowledge: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

The internet has become a commonly used information source for people seeking to understand their health care options. However, inconsistent representation about what stem cell treatments are available and from whom, coupled with the lack of transparency about what has been shown to work or is even safe, can distract and mislead users. Given these challenges, there is a need to develop effective evidence-based tools for delivering information about health care options involving stem cells.

OBJECTIVE

A need to redesign an existing website in Australia was identified to provide trustworthy information about stem cell research and to counter misinformation. Using a participatory design approach to generate an understanding of what information users need for stem cell treatments, the Stem Cells Australia website serves as a case study for the development and evaluation of websites delivering complex messages about science and health.

METHODS

This study comprised 3 steps. First, a focus group and several one-on-one interviews with a purposive sample of users (n=12) were conducted to identify their needs and requirements. Second, we designed a new version of the website based on findings from the focus group and interviews. Finally, for evaluating the participatory design process, we collected 180 days of Google Analytics data for both the original and redesigned versions (90 days for each) and compared their differences using 2-sample z tests.

RESULTS

The feedback from participants was grouped into 3 themes-needed and unwanted information, how and where to obtain information, and their information preferences. These were translated into requirements for rebuilding the website. The redesigned version reached users in other continents, despite the daily numbers of users (-61.2%; P<.001) and sessions (-61.7%; P<.001) decreasing. The redesigned version also showed substantial decrease in daily bounce rate (-97.2%; P<.001), significant increase in the daily average of page reads per session (+110.8%; P<.001), and long daily average for session duration (+22.9%; P=.045). Navigation flow analysis showed more traffic toward web pages related to health conditions in the redesigned version.

CONCLUSIONS

Websites about stem cell research need to provide content for vulnerable global audiences. Participatory design that addresses knowledge gaps and information needs can produce better performance and engagement, which can be evaluated using Google Analytics, a common web analytics tool used by many websites. Learnings for improving the metrics regarding website identity, research updates, and clinical trials are concluded, which can inform the future design of websites seeking to engage users and provide reliable and accessible science and health information including but not limited to stem cell research and therapies.

Patients seeking stem cell therapies-a prospective qualitative analysis from a Regenerative Medicine Consult Service

Despite patient demand for stem cell therapies (SCTs) for musculoskeletal conditions, there remains limited research on why patients seek SCTs or their sources of information. We employ three questions into a consult intake form: (1) Why are you interested in stem cell treatment for your condition? (2) How did you find out about stem cell treatment for your condition? (3) Have you contacted a stem cell clinic? Responses analyzed, using a qualitative content analysis approach to identify themes reveal many patients seek SCTs to treat pain or delay surgery which may align with some current clinical evidence while other patients express motivations as expected outcomes (e.g., SCTs are better than standard of care or can regenerate tissue) which are not supported by current medical evidence. These differences suggests that patient-centered counseling may help patients by addressing misconceptions and increasing health literacy about expected outcomes of SCTs for treating musculoskeletal conditions.

The Direct to Consumer Stem Cell Market and the Role of Primary Care Providers in Correcting Misinformation

INTRODUCTION

Direct to consumer stem cell and regenerative interventions (SCRIs) for various medical conditions have increased in popularity due to unmet medical needs and the promise of SCRIs to meet those needs. These interventions may have varying levels of safety and efficacy data and many lack sufficient scientific data to be marketed. The direct to consumer SCRI industry has received significant attention due to potential physical, economic, and emotional harms to patients. Patients may seek the counsel of their primary care providers when considering stem cell therapy for their condition.

METHODS

Here we describe strategies primary care providers can utilize when counseling patients.

RESULTS

Although we recommend constructing these discussions around individual patients' needs, one can utilize a general approach consisting of 4 parts. First, providers should recognize what information the patient is seeking and what is their understanding of stem cell and regenerative medicine. Next, providers should convey evidence-based information at the level of patients understanding so that they are aware of the risks, benefits, and descriptions of possible procedures. Throughout the conversations, attempts should be made to guide patients to a trusted resource that can provide additional information. Finally, providers should make an effort to address misinformation in a way that is nonjudgmental and patient-centered to make the patient feel safe and comfortable.

CONCLUSION

Effectively communicating risk information by primary care providers to patients is important given the harms reported from direct-to-consumer SCRIs. Correcting misinformation remains a priority when discussing SCRI's. Providers should strive to offer patients with additional resources such as the opportunity for consultation with a specialist or a consultation service dedicated to informing patients about regenerative medicine.

Academic Physician Specialists' Approaches to Counseling Patients Interested in Unproven Stem Cell and Regenerative Therapies-A Qualitative Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experiences, approaches, and challenges of physicians consulting patients about experimental stem cell and regenerative medicine interventions (SCRIs).

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

From August 21, 2018, through July 30, 2019, semistructured interviews of 25 specialists in cardiology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, pulmonology, and neurology were conducted and qualitatively analyzed using modified grounded theory.

RESULTS

All specialists used informational approaches to counsel patients, especially orthopedists. Informational approaches included explaining stem cell science, sharing risks, and providing principles. Several specialists also used relational counseling approaches including emphasizing that physicians want what is best for patients, acknowledging suffering, reassuring continued care, empathizing with patients and families, and underscoring that patients have the final decision. Many specialists reported being comfortable with the conversation, although some were less comfortable and several noted challenges in the consultation including wanting to support a patient's decision but worrying about harms from unproven SCRIs, navigating family pressure, and addressing stem cell hype and unrealistic expectations. Specialists also desired that additional resources be available for them and patients.

CONCLUSION

Physicians relied more heavily on providing patients with information about SCRIs than using relational counseling approaches. Efforts should be directed at helping physicians address the informational and relational needs of patients, including providing tools and resources that inform physicians about the unproven SCRI industry, building skills in empathic communication, and the creation and dissemination of evidence-based resources to offer patients.

Academic physician specialists' views toward the unproven stem cell intervention industry: areas of common ground and divergence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Premature commercialization of unproven stem cell interventions (SCIs) has received significant attention within the regenerative medicine community. Patients considering SCIs may encounter misinformation and seek out guidance from their physicians who are trusted brokers of health information. However, little is known about the perspectives of academic physician specialists toward the SCI industry. The purpose of this study was to capture the attitudes of physician specialists with experience addressing patient questions about unproven SCIs.

METHODS

The authors undertook 25 semi-structured interviews with academic physicians in cardiology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, pulmonology and neurology primarily from one academic center.

RESULTS

The authors identified two major themes: concerns and mediators of appropriateness of offering SCIs as therapies to patients. Specialists were generally aware of the industry and reported scientific and commercial concerns, including the scientific uncertainty of SCIs, medical harms to patients, misleading marketing and its impact on patient informed consent and economic harms due to large out-of-pocket costs for patients. All specialists outside of orthopedics voiced that it was inappropriate to be offering SCIs to patients today. These views were informed by previously expressed concerns surrounding safety and properly informing patients, levels of evidence needed prior to offering SCIs therapeutically and desired qualifications for clinicians. Among the specialties, orthopedists reported that under certain conditions, SCIs may be appropriate for patients with limited clinical options but only when safety is adequate, expectations are managed and patients are well informed about the risks and chances of benefit. Most participants expressed a desire for phase 3 studies and Food and Drug Administration approval prior to marketing SCIs, but some also shared the challenges associated with upholding these thresholds of evidence, especially when caring for out-of-option patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' results suggest that medical specialists are aware of the industry and express several concerns surrounding SCIs but differ in their views on the appropriateness and clinical evidence necessary for offering SCIs currently to patients. Additional educational tools may help physicians with patient engagement and expectation management surrounding SCIs.

Challenging misinformation and engaging patients: characterizing a regenerative medicine consult service

Aim: To address the unmet needs of patients interested in regenerative medicine, Mayo Clinic created a Regenerative Medicine Consult Service (RMCS). We describe the service and patient satisfaction. Materials & methods: We analyzed RMCS databases through retrospective chart analysis and performed qualitative interviews with patients. Results: The average patient was older to elderly and seeking information about regenerative options for their condition. Patients reported various conditions with osteoarthritis being most common. Over a third of consults included discussions about unproven interventions. About a third of patients received a clinical or research referral. Patients reported the RMCS as useful and the consultant as knowledgeable. Conclusion: An institutional RMCS can meet patients' informational needs and support the responsible translation of regenerative medicine.