Search

Objectives: When therapeutic options are limited, patients may invest hope in therapies proposed by healthcare professional, or those they find online. This review aims to explore how healthcare professional-patient communication is realised when discussing stem cell therapies., Method: Four electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant studies. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Descriptive analyses and a thematic analysis guided by a functions of medical communication framework were performed on extracted data., Results: Most included studies addressed communication in contexts of conventional stem cell therapies, such as bone marrow transplants for blood cancers. Few studies investigated communication in contexts of experimental stem cell therapies yet to receive regulatory approval. Two themes were identified as informational and relational aspects of communication, and a third theme being a mismatch in orientations., Conclusions: Communication between healthcare professionals and patients about stem cell therapies is practised using a combination of communication approaches that do not always align with patients' needs, hopes or expectations., Practice Implications: The context of healthcare settings and health conditions are important when communicating about stem cell therapies. Acknowledging healthcare professionals' environmental and personal determinants can inform strategies to navigate complex discussions about stem cell therapies with patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The rapid proliferation of businesses engaged in direct-to-consumer advertising of unproven stem cell interventions has raised troubling questions about whether government bodies can regulate this health market effectively. Recent developments in Australia and Canada suggest that such fears are unfounded and that targeted regulatory action can have meaningful effects., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests J.E.J.R. has advisory roles in the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Australian Government; in the Human Research Ethics Committee, Genea; and as a member of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for a Fanconi anemia trial. He has shareholdings with Rarecyte and Woke and receives grant/research support from the NHMRC (GNT1177305), the NSWCC, the CINSW, the MRFF, Therapeutic Innovation Australia, and philanthropic foundations. J.E.J.R. receives supply of material (MTA), consultancy, or honoraria from Rarecyte; Novartis; bluebird bio; Spark Therapeutics, Inc.; Cynata Therapeutics; Pfizer; and CRISPRTx. He is a member of the board of directors or an advisory committee for these bodies: AAVec Bio, cofounder, and Kennerton Capital, non-executive director. He is employed by the Sydney Local Health District at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. L.T. served as a compensated expert witness for the US government in a criminal case and as a pro bono expert witness in a class action lawsuit. He is a member of the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy and its Ethics of Cell and Gene Therapy Committee. He is also a member of the International Society for Stem Cell Research and its Ethics Committee. L.T.’s research program has received funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the University of California, Irvine. L.I. served as a pro bono expert witness in a class action lawsuit. He is a member of the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy and its Ethics of Cell and Gene Therapy Committee. He is also a member of the International Society for Stem Cell Research. L.I.’s research program has received funding from the US National Institutes of Health and the University at Buffalo. M.M. serves on the board of the International Society for Stem Cell Research and is a member of its Ethics and Public Policy Committees. She is the President of the Australasian Society for Stem Cell Research and a board member of the National Stem Cell Foundation of Australia. M.M.’s research program receives funding from reNEW, the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Stem Cell Medicine (NNF21CC0073729), and the Australian Government Medical Research Future Fund (APP2007623)., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Over the last two decades, numerous experimental studies have examined the feasibility of delivering stem cells into the cochlea to restore hearing. While these studies have spawned new cell therapy companies, there is little information on what patients understand or expect from these emerging therapies. Methods: This study sought to understand the awareness and perspectives of Australian audiologists and their adult patients toward stem cell therapies for treating hearing loss. Results: An anonymous survey indicated 91% of patients and 39% of audiologists were unaware of these therapies being developed. Thirty percent of audiologists reported being asked about stem cell therapies for hearing loss, but 70% were not confident answering patient queries about this and were unsure where to gather information. Primary concerns reported by patients were cost (45%) and safety of treatment (42%). Interestingly, 58% of patients were unsure of how this therapy would improve their hearing, yet 25% of these patients expected that their hearing would return to normal. Conclusion: There was strong support for development of educational materials for both patient and clinician. The increasingly important role of audiologists in providing patient counselling was reflected in overwhelming support (from both patient and clinician) for audiologists providing such information.

In this article, we provide an ethical analysis of the first porcine cardiac xenotransplant, performed in Maryland, USA in early 2022. David Bennett was offered the experimental procedure after he was deemed ineligible for human heart transplantation and mechanical circulatory support, based on a history of non-compliance. It was reported that Mr Bennett's previous instances of non-compliance were for medically non-life-threatening conditions years earlier, where the risks of non-compliance were not as high. We argue that, in Mr Bennett's case, a history of non-compliance in a different context, should not necessarily rule him ineligible for a potentially life-saving treatment now. Furthermore, using previous non-compliance to exclude individuals from donor organs may have the unintended effect of placing the burden of testing xenotransplantation on those who are already disadvantaged. We then argue that it is not enough to rely on patient consent to ethically justify xenotransplantation research. Taking a broad ethical perspective is crucial when mapping a clinical pathway for xenotransplantation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Patients and their families routinely use the Internet to learn about stem cell research. What they find, is increasingly influenced by ongoing changes in how information is filtered and presented online. This article reflects on recent developments in generative artificial intelligence and how the stem cell community should respond., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests M.M. is a board member of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR); has been involved in the design and delivery of the ISSCR A Closer Look at Stem Cells website and ISSCR Guidelines, and is on the International Advisory Panel for EuroGCT. A.C. is a staff member of EuroGCT and serves on the Education Committee of the ISSCR., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Health information websites can be useful for information seekers, and their design is crucial for the success of accessing the needed information. While web analytical tools (e.g. Google Analytics) used by such websites can provide descriptive measures of users, there is a disconnection between this data and the current understanding of health information-seeking behaviour. In this work, we leverage a theoretical model to interpret the Google Analytics data. Drawn on the visualisation of user behaviours based on this model, our research shows that better website design can be informed, and the evaluation of health websites can be performed on the basis of different user profiles.

Scientists and pharmaceutical companies are working toward delivering gene therapy (GT) for Friedreich ataxia (FRDA). Understanding the views of people with lived experience of FRDA and their parents toward GT is essential to inform trial design and identify potential barriers to participation in clinical trials. The goals of this study were to identify the attitudes toward GT held by individuals with FRDA and parents of individuals with FRDA, and to explore how these may impact future trials for this condition. Audiorecorded, semistructured, qualitative interviews with 19 Australians explored experiences of FRDA, knowledge about clinical trials, views on GT, including risks and benefits, and potential barriers to participation in trials. Participants included thirteen individuals living with FRDA aged between 15-43 years, and six parents of children with FRDA aged 4-12 years of age. Thematic analysis of the interviews identified six main themes. Findings from this study indicate there is strong desire for information regarding GT in FRDA, however the current level of uncertainty around GT makes decision making challenging. The desire to maintain functional status and avoid additional risk of deterioration from an investigational treatment was apparent. Importantly, neurological targets were identified as preferred for GT trials. Further research is required to identify if attitudes and perceptions differ according to geographical location and disease stage.

The field of regenerative medicine, including cellular immunotherapies, is on a remarkable growth trajectory. Dozens of cell-, tissue- and gene-based products have received marketing authorization worldwide while hundreds-to-thousands are either in preclinical development or under clinical investigation in phased clinical trials. However, the promise of regenerative therapies has also given rise to a global industry of direct-to-consumer offerings of prematurely commercialized cell and cell-based products with unknown safety and efficacy profiles. Since its inception, the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy Committee on the Ethics of Cell and Gene Therapy has opposed the premature commercialization of unproven cell- and gene-based interventions and supported the development of evidence-based advanced therapy products. In the present Guide, targeted at International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy members, we analyze this industry, focusing in particular on distinctive features of unproven cell and cell-based products and the use of tokens of scientific legitimacy as persuasive marketing devices. We also provide an overview of reporting mechanisms for patients who believe they have been harmed by administration of unapproved and unproven products and suggest practical strategies to address the direct-to-consumer marketing of such products. Development of this Guide epitomizes our continued support for the ethical and rigorous development of cell and cell-based products with patient safety and therapeutic benefit as guiding principles., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Hamid R. Bidkhori is the chancellor of the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research (ACECR) - Mashhad. He is a member of the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy (ISCT), the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) and the ISCT Committee on the Ethics of Cell and Gene Therapy. Rachele Ciccocioppo is a member of the Advisory Board of Takeda (Italy) for the use of mesenchymal stromal cells in fistulizing Crohn's disease. Natividad Cuende is a member of the Governing Council of the Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios (Spanish Medicine and Medical Device Agency). She is member of the ISCT Committee on the Ethics of Cell and Gene Therapy and the ISCT Legal and Regulatory Affairs Committee–Europe. She is also member of the Spanish Guarantee Committee for Donation and Use of Human Cells and Tissues of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. She is not paid for these roles. Bambi Grilley is affiliated with QBRegulatory Consulting LLC that has provided regulatory affairs and project management support to AlloVir, Marker Therapeutics, LOKON Pharma, Tessa Therapeutics and March Biosciences. She is a member of ISCT and its Ethics of Cell and Gene Therapy (ECGT) Committee and is the incoming Chief Regulatory Officer of ISCT. She is not paid for her roles in ISCT. Conflict of interest is managed in accordance with Baylor College of Medicine policy and oversight. Laertis Ikonomou has written an expert report in a class action lawsuit filed against a business selling unproven “stem cell”-based interventions, and wrote the report on a pro bono basis. He is a member of the ISCT and the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) and the chair of the ISCT Committee on the Ethics of Cell and Gene Therapy. He is not paid for these roles. Conflict of interest is managed in accordance with University at Buffalo policy and oversight. Aaron D. Levine is a member of ISCT and its ECGT committee. He is not paid for these roles. Levine's research program is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (Grant No. EEC-1648035). Bruce Levine has received compensation for serving on the scientific advisory boards of Akron Bio, Avectas, Immuneel, Immusoft, In8bio, Ori Biotech, Oxford Biomedica, UTC Therapeutics and Vycellix. He has received compensation for consulting for GSK. He has received compensation and equity from Capstan Therapeutics as a co-founder and member of the Scientific Advisory Board. As co-founder of Tmunity Therapeutics, he received equity. Conflict of interest is managed in accordance with University of Pennsylvania policy and oversight. Megan Munsie is a member of the International Society for Stem Cell Research and its Ethics Committee and Public Policy Committee. She is also the President of the Australasian Society for Stem Cell Research. Munsie's research program is supported by the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Stem Cell Medicine (NNF21CC0073729). John E. J. Rasko: employment: Royal Prince Alfred Hospital; consultancy and honoraria: Rarecyte, Gilead, Roche, Novartis, Bluebird Bio, Spark therapeutics, Cynata, Pfizer; equity: Genea; shareholder: Rarecyte, Woke; DSMB: Diamond Fanconi anemia trial; research funding: National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), New South Wales Cancer Council, Cancer Institute NSW (CINSW), Therapeutic Innovation Australia, Philanthropic foundations; Chair, Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, Office of The Gene Technology Regulator, Australian Government. Leigh Turner served as a compensated expert witness for the US government in a criminal case and as a pro bono expert witness in a class action lawsuit. He is a member of ISCT and its ECGT committee. He is also a member of the International Society for Stem Cell Research and its Ethics Committee and Membership Committee. Turner's research program is supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Daniel J. Weiss served as a compensated expert witness for the US government in a criminal case and as a pro bono expert witness in a class action lawsuit. He is a member of ISCT and its ECGT committee and is former Chief Scientific Officer of the ISCT. He is not paid for his roles in the ISCT. Dr. Weiss has received compensation for consulting with Mesoblast Inc., NextCell Inc., United Therapeutics. Inc. and Vertex Inc. Conflict of interest is managed in accordance with University of Vermont policy and oversight. Patricia J. Zettler reports serving as a consultant to the US Food & Drug Administration. All the other authors have no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article., (Copyright © 2023 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The internet has become a commonly used information source for people seeking to understand their health care options. However, inconsistent representation about what stem cell treatments are available and from whom, coupled with the lack of transparency about what has been shown to work or is even safe, can distract and mislead users. Given these challenges, there is a need to develop effective evidence-based tools for delivering information about health care options involving stem cells., Objective: A need to redesign an existing website in Australia was identified to provide trustworthy information about stem cell research and to counter misinformation. Using a participatory design approach to generate an understanding of what information users need for stem cell treatments, the Stem Cells Australia website serves as a case study for the development and evaluation of websites delivering complex messages about science and health., Methods: This study comprised 3 steps. First, a focus group and several one-on-one interviews with a purposive sample of users (n=12) were conducted to identify their needs and requirements. Second, we designed a new version of the website based on findings from the focus group and interviews. Finally, for evaluating the participatory design process, we collected 180 days of Google Analytics data for both the original and redesigned versions (90 days for each) and compared their differences using 2-sample z tests., Results: The feedback from participants was grouped into 3 themes-needed and unwanted information, how and where to obtain information, and their information preferences. These were translated into requirements for rebuilding the website. The redesigned version reached users in other continents, despite the daily numbers of users (-61.2%; P<.001) and sessions (-61.7%; P<.001) decreasing. The redesigned version also showed substantial decrease in daily bounce rate (-97.2%; P<.001), significant increase in the daily average of page reads per session (+110.8%; P<.001), and long daily average for session duration (+22.9%; P=.045). Navigation flow analysis showed more traffic toward web pages related to health conditions in the redesigned version., Conclusions: Websites about stem cell research need to provide content for vulnerable global audiences. Participatory design that addresses knowledge gaps and information needs can produce better performance and engagement, which can be evaluated using Google Analytics, a common web analytics tool used by many websites. Learnings for improving the metrics regarding website identity, research updates, and clinical trials are concluded, which can inform the future design of websites seeking to engage users and provide reliable and accessible science and health information including but not limited to stem cell research and therapies., (©Patrick Cheong-Iao Pang, Megan Munsie, Shanton Chang, Claire Tanner, Christine Walker. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 20.07.2023.)

Objective: To explore the experiences, approaches, and challenges of physicians consulting patients about experimental stem cell and regenerative medicine interventions (SCRIs)., Participants and Methods: From August 21, 2018, through July 30, 2019, semistructured interviews of 25 specialists in cardiology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, pulmonology, and neurology were conducted and qualitatively analyzed using modified grounded theory., Results: All specialists used informational approaches to counsel patients, especially orthopedists. Informational approaches included explaining stem cell science, sharing risks, and providing principles. Several specialists also used relational counseling approaches including emphasizing that physicians want what is best for patients, acknowledging suffering, reassuring continued care, empathizing with patients and families, and underscoring that patients have the final decision. Many specialists reported being comfortable with the conversation, although some were less comfortable and several noted challenges in the consultation including wanting to support a patient's decision but worrying about harms from unproven SCRIs, navigating family pressure, and addressing stem cell hype and unrealistic expectations. Specialists also desired that additional resources be available for them and patients., Conclusion: Physicians relied more heavily on providing patients with information about SCRIs than using relational counseling approaches. Efforts should be directed at helping physicians address the informational and relational needs of patients, including providing tools and resources that inform physicians about the unproven SCRI industry, building skills in empathic communication, and the creation and dissemination of evidence-based resources to offer patients., (Copyright © 2021 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The significant morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) prompted a global race to develop new therapies. These include interventions using cell- or cell-derived products, several of which are being tested in well-designed, properly controlled clinical trials. Yet, the search for cell-based COVID-19 treatments has also been fraught with hyperbolic claims; flouting of crucial regulatory, scientific, and ethical norms; and distorted communication of research findings. In this paper, we critically examine ethical issues and public communication challenges related to the development of cell-based therapeutics for COVID-19. Drawing on the lessons learned from this ongoing process, we argue against the rushed development of cell-based interventions. We conclude by outlining ways to improve the ethical conduct of cell-based clinical investigations and public communication of therapeutic claims., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective This paper provides an update and overview of the law governing direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of autologous stem cell interventions (ASCIs) in Australia. It follows significant changes to the advertising regulations made in 2018. Methods The paper reviews the three primary sources or 'centres' of law regulating ASCIs in Australia, together with the relevant guidance documents that supplement these sources. It provides analysis of how the post-2018 advertising regulations, contained in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cwlth), apply to all 'biologicals', including ASCIs. It demonstrates how these three sources of law interact with one another and outlines the new tiered offence regime that applies to contraventions of these prohibitions. Results The analysis demonstrates that DTC advertising of ASCIs in Australia is strictly controlled, with primary legislation prohibiting the advertising of biologicals altogether. Conclusions The polycentric legal regime regulating biologicals in Australia clearly makes DTC advertising of ASCIs unlawful. Health practitioners who promote ASCIs, either online, in print or in other media forms, may be penalised in different ways and by different authorities. What is known about the topic? Although several analyses have examined the regulation of ASCIs in Australia, no analysis has studied the reforms made in 2018 relating to the advertising of biologicals. As such, this analysis contributes a fresh examination of these relatively recent reforms. What does this paper add? This analysis clarifies the effects of these new advertising regulations, providing clear guidance on the relevant legal provisions for the benefit of health practitioners and health professionals more generally. What are the implications for practitioners? Health practitioners, especially those who offer ASCIs, should be aware that civil and criminal penalties are likely to be imposed on individuals who promote biologicals in Australia by any means.

Background and Aims: Premature commercialization of unproven stem cell interventions (SCIs) has received significant attention within the regenerative medicine community. Patients considering SCIs may encounter misinformation and seek out guidance from their physicians who are trusted brokers of health information. However, little is known about the perspectives of academic physician specialists toward the SCI industry. The purpose of this study was to capture the attitudes of physician specialists with experience addressing patient questions about unproven SCIs., Methods: The authors undertook 25 semi-structured interviews with academic physicians in cardiology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, pulmonology and neurology primarily from one academic center., Results: The authors identified two major themes: concerns and mediators of appropriateness of offering SCIs as therapies to patients. Specialists were generally aware of the industry and reported scientific and commercial concerns, including the scientific uncertainty of SCIs, medical harms to patients, misleading marketing and its impact on patient informed consent and economic harms due to large out-of-pocket costs for patients. All specialists outside of orthopedics voiced that it was inappropriate to be offering SCIs to patients today. These views were informed by previously expressed concerns surrounding safety and properly informing patients, levels of evidence needed prior to offering SCIs therapeutically and desired qualifications for clinicians. Among the specialties, orthopedists reported that under certain conditions, SCIs may be appropriate for patients with limited clinical options but only when safety is adequate, expectations are managed and patients are well informed about the risks and chances of benefit. Most participants expressed a desire for phase 3 studies and Food and Drug Administration approval prior to marketing SCIs, but some also shared the challenges associated with upholding these thresholds of evidence, especially when caring for out-of-option patients., Conclusions: The authors' results suggest that medical specialists are aware of the industry and express several concerns surrounding SCIs but differ in their views on the appropriateness and clinical evidence necessary for offering SCIs currently to patients. Additional educational tools may help physicians with patient engagement and expectation management surrounding SCIs., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article examines how Australian providers of unproven autologous 'stem cell treatments' legitimise these products and their practices. We focus on the strategies employed by providers in their efforts to create and sustain a market for procedures that have yet to be proven safe and clinically efficacious. Drawing on the work of Thomas Gieryn and Pierre Bourdieu and the findings of research involving an analysis of direct-to-consumer online advertising of clinics that sell purported 'stem cell treatments' and interviews with clinicians who provide them, we examine the mechanisms by which medical legitimacy for these products is established and defended. We argue that Australian providers employ a number of strategies in order to create medical legitimacy for the use and sale of scientifically unproven therapies. A key strategy employed by providers of stem cell treatments is to use markers of social distinction, drawing strongly on the symbols of science, to confirm their legitimacy and differentiate their own practices from those of other providers, who are posited as operating outside the boundary of accepted practice and hence illegitimate. We argue there is a paradox at the heart of the autologous stem cell treatment market. Providers aim to create legitimacy for their work by emphasising the potential benefits of their 'treatments', their expertise and the professionalisation of their practices in an environment where regulators are yet to take a firm stance; they are also required to undertake the challenging task of managing patients' hopes and expectations that both enable and potentially jeopardise their operations and revenue. We conclude by suggesting that providers' creation of symbolic capital to establish medical legitimacy is a crucial means by which they seek to bring unproven 'stem cell treatments' from the margins of medicine into the mainstream and to portray themselves as medical pioneers rather than medical cowboys who exploit vulnerable patients.

This column explores a recent health profession disciplinary case which throws light on the problems of unconventional interventions by medical practitioners under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld). The case involved "innovative" practices which were later found to have been scientifically unsupported, dangerous to patients and grounds for cancelling the health practitioner's registration. This column looks at common features of these kinds of cases in Australia and then examines recent attempts by the Medical Board of Australia to draft policy guidance around the use of unconventional practice in medicine. This column concludes with a number of changes to improve the effectiveness of the proposed policy., Competing Interests: None.

Over the past few years, a number of research groups have reported striking progress on the generation of in vitro models from mouse and human stem cells that replicate aspects of early embryonic development. Not only do these models reproduce some key cell fate decisions but, especially in the mouse system, they also mimic the spatiotemporal arrangements of embryonic and extraembryonic tissues that are required for developmental patterning and implantation in the uterus. If such models could be developed for the early human embryo, they would have great potential benefits for understanding early human development, for biomedical science, and for reducing the use of animals and human embryos in research. However, guidelines for the ethical conduct of this line of work are at present not well defined. In this Forum article, we discuss some key aspects of this emerging area of research and provide some recommendations for its ethical oversight., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In 2018, Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration introduced regulatory reforms that set stricter criteria around the regulation of products derived from a patient's own cells and tissues, posing significant implications for clinics offering stem cell treatments. We review the regulatory framework and discuss its potential commercial implications, including the ambiguities that may arise from it in practice, as well as the likely impact it will have on product development and advertising practices in the future.

The prevalence of businesses selling autologous stem cell-based interventions to patients in Australia has raised serious concerns about how weaknesses in regulation have enabled the emergence of an industry that engages in aggressive marketing of unproven treatments to patients. Little is known about how patients experience this marketing and their subsequent interactions with practitioners. This paper reports results from 15 semistructured interviews with patients and carers, and also draws upon discussion conducted with patients, carers and family members (22 participants) in a workshop setting. We explore how Australian patients and carers understand and experience these interventions, and how their presumptions about the ethics of medical practice, and the regulatory environment in Australia have conditioned their preparedness to undergo unproven treatments.

Aim: This study examines online enquiries received by two prominent stem cell science initiatives operating in different geographical jurisdictions. Materials & methods: Combined quantitative and qualitative analysis undertaken of internet-based queries (n = 1047) received by Stem Cells Australia and EuroStemCell from members of the public over a two-year period (May 2014-2016). Results: Findings reveal striking similarities between the two datasets and highlight the range of uncertainties, priorities and needs of those seeking information about stem cells online. Conclusion: Sustained and in-depth tailored guidance is needed to effectively meet the diverse stem cell-related information-based needs of communities internationally. Such efforts should be prioritized by regenerative medicine research initiatives and organizations, given the trust and hope diverse publics appear to place in these groups.