Patient Attitudes Toward the Use of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in the Treatment of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), a safe, effective alternative therapy for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), is infrequently used, in part because of an assumption that patients are unwilling to consider FMT because of its unappealing nature. METHODS: Through a structured survey, including hypothetical case scenarios, we assessed patient perceptions of the aesthetics of FMT and their willingness to consider it as a treatment option, when presented with scenarios involving recurrent CDI. RESULTS: Four hundred surveys were distributed; 192 (48%) were returned complete. Seventy percent of respondents were female; 59% were >49 years of age. When provided efficacy data only, 162 respondents (85%) chose to receive FMT, and 29 (15%) chose antibiotics alone. When aware of the fecal nature of FMT, 16 respondents changed their choice from FMT to antibiotics alone, but there was no significant change in the total number choosing FMT (154 [81%]; P = .15). More respondents chose FMT if offered as a pill (90%; P = .002) or if their physician recommended it (94%; P < .001). Respondents rated all aspects of FMT at least "somewhat unappealing," selecting "the need to handle stool" and "receiving FMT by nasogastric tube" as most unappealing. Women rated all aspects of FMT more unappealing; older respondents rated all aspects less unappealing. Most respondents preferred to receive FMT in the hospital (48%) or physician's office (39%); 77% were willing to pay out-of-pocket for FMT. CONCLUSIONS: Patients recognize the inherently unappealing nature of FMT, but they are nonetheless open to considering it as a treatment alternative for recurrent CDI, especially when recommended by a physician.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".