Gene Therapy Knowledge and Attitude Among Healthcare Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and concerns toward gene therapy in Saudi Arabia. We conducted an online cross-sectional survey via convenience sampling during the period from December 2018 to March 2019. A total of 419 (358 pharmacists and 61 physicians) responded to our questionnaire. Three hundred and nine (73.7%) were male, and the mean (±SD) age of 32.0 ± 7.7 years. The mean knowledge scores of all participants, pharmacists, and physicians were 3.8 ± 1.9, 3.8 ± 1.9, and 3.7 ± 1.9, respectively ( P = 0.73). Higher knowledge score was associated with younger age (Coefficient: −0.03; P = 0.02), male (Coefficient: 0.57; P = 0.01), master's degree (Coefficient: 0.93; P = 0.003) and Ph.D. holders (Coefficient: 1.10; P = 0.01), and participants graduated from Canada (Coefficient: 2.10; P = 0.01).Moreover, about half of the respondents (55%) were concerned about gene therapy, and genetics training at college was considered the best gene therapy education method by 69.4%. Attitude score was not significantly associated with the profession ( P = 0.88) but positively correlated with the knowledge score (rho= 0.4; P < 0.001). In conclusion, pharmacists and physicians showed limited knowledge with a positive attitude toward gene therapy. Therefore, educational programs on gene therapy need to be considered, focusing primarily on the safety, and social acceptance of such new therapeutic management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".