Ethical aspects of hemophilia gene therapy: a qualitative interview study with stakeholders
Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis, ISSN: 2475-0379, Vol: 7, Issue: 7, Page: 102237
2023
- 2Citations
- 18Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations2
- Citation Indexes2
- Captures18
- Readers18
- 18
Article Description
There are great expectations for the potential role of gene therapy in the treatment of hemophilia. At the same time, developments in the field of hemophilia gene therapy have always raised ethical issues. It remains unknown how these ethical issues are perceived by stakeholders, particularly regarding the most recent developments in the field. To obtain insight into stakeholders’ morally reasoned opinions on gene therapy for hemophilia. We conducted qualitative research with Dutch people with hemophilia ( n = 13), parents of children with hemophilia ( n = 5), physicians ( n = 4), nurses ( n = 3), a regulator ( n = 1), and a representative from a pharmaceutical company ( n = 1). We conducted semistructured interviews based on a topic list and reported the results according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. We identified 3 main themes. The theme freedom and independence describes the hope people with hemophilia have of increasing their freedom through gene therapy, as well as concerns that gene therapy increases their dependence on their treatment center. The theme trust and altruism describes how people with hemophilia have a high level of trust in their physician and treatment center as well as in scientific research. As a result of this trust, they are willing to participate in research to help other people with hemophilia. The theme incremental benefits describes doubts respondents have about the added value of gene therapy compared to standard treatment. Stakeholders embrace the theoretical potential of gene therapy, while several people with hemophilia question the added value of the current gene transfer products for themselves.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475037923004971; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rpth.2023.102237; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85176587356&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38077815; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2475037923004971; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rpth.2023.102237
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know