↓ Skip to main content

How Chinese clinicians face ethical and social challenges in fecal microbiota transplantation: a questionnaire study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Chinese clinicians face ethical and social challenges in fecal microbiota transplantation: a questionnaire study
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0200-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yonghui Ma, Jinqiu Yang, Bota Cui, Hongzhi Xu, Chuanxing Xiao, Faming Zhang

Abstract

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is reportedly the most effective therapy for relapsing Clostridium Difficile infection (CDI) and a potential therapeutic option for many diseases. It also poses important ethical concerns. This study is an attempt to assess clinicians' perception and attitudes towards ethical and social challenges raised by fecal microbiota transplantation. A questionnaire was developed which consisted of 20 items: four items covered general aspects, nine were about ethical aspects such as informed consent and privacy issues, four concerned social and regulatory issues, and three were about an FMT bank. This was distributed to participants at the Second China gastroenterology and FMT conference in May 2015. Basic descriptive statistical analyses and simple comparative statistical tests were performed. Nearly three quarters of the 100 respondents were gastro-enterologist physicians. 89% of all respondents believed FMT is a promising treatment modality for some diseases and 88% of whom chose clinical efficacy as the primary reason for recommending FMT. High expectation from patients and pressure on clinicians (33%) was reported as the most frequent reasons for not recommending FMT. The clinicians who had less familiarity with FMT reported significantly more worry related to the dignity and psychological impact of FMT compared to those who have high familiarity with FMT (51.6% vs 27.8%, p = 0.021).More than half of the respondents (56.1%) were concerned about the commercialization of FMT, although almost one in five respondents did not see this as a problem. We found most respondents have positive attitudes towards FMT but low awareness of published evidence. Informed consent for vulnerable patients, privacy and protection of donors were perceived as the most challenging ethical aspects of FMT. This study identified areas of limited knowledge and ways of addressing ethical issues and indicates the need to devise the education and training for clinicians on FMT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 19 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2021.
All research outputs
#6,741,050
of 24,051,764 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#575
of 1,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,495
of 319,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,051,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.