Insights into Healthcare Professionals’ Perceptions and Attitudes toward Nanotechnological Device Application: What Is the Current Situation in Glioblastoma Research?
2023
Federica Ragucci | Francesca Sireci | Francesco Cavallieri | Jessica Rossi | Giuseppe Biagini | Giovanni Tosi | Chiara Lucchi | Rodolfo Molina-Pena | Natalia Helen Ferreira | Mariana Zarur | Alba Ferreiros | William Bourgeois | François Berger | Miguel Abal | Audrey Rousseau | Frank Boury | Carmen Alvarez-Lorenzo | Emmanuel Garcion | Anna Pisanello | Giacomo Pavesi | Corrado Iaccarino | Luca Ghirotto | Maria Chiara Bassi | Franco Valzania
Nanotechnology application in cancer treatment is promising and is likely to quickly spread worldwide in the near future. To date, most scientific studies on nanomaterial development have focused on deepening the attitudes of end users and experts, leaving clinical practice implications unexplored. Neuro-oncology might be a promising field for the application of nanotechnologies, especially for malignant brain tumors with a low-survival rate such as glioblastoma (GBM). As to improving patients’ quality of life and life expectancy, innovative treatments are worth being explored. Indeed, it is important to explore clinicians’ intention to use experimental technologies in clinical practice. In the present study, we conducted an exploratory review of the literature about healthcare workers’ knowledge and personal opinions toward nanomedicine. Our search (i) gives evidence for disagreement between self-reported and factual knowledge about nanomedicine and (ii) suggests the internet and television as main sources of information about current trends in nanomedicine applications, over scientific journals and formal education. Current models of risk assessment suggest time-saving cognitive and affective shortcuts, i.e., heuristics support both laypeople and experts in the decision-making process under uncertainty, whereas they might be a source of error. Whether the knowledge is poor, heuristics are more likely to occur and thus clinicians’ opinions and perspectives toward new technologies might be biased.
Показать больше [+] Меньше [-]Ключевые слова АГРОВОК
Библиографическая информация
Эту запись предоставил Directory of Open Access Journals