Orthopedic Reviews· 2026Q2
Public Attitudes Towards Regenerative Orthopedic Therapy
- 0citations
- Q2SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A survey of 100 US adults found 77% rate their knowledge of regenerative orthopedic therapies as little or none, despite 60% having prior awareness, with cost (72%) and insurance coverage (62%) being major perceived barriers.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- 77% of 100 US adults surveyed reported little to no self-rated knowledge of regenerative orthopedic therapies.
- Stem cell therapy was recognized by 84% of respondents, while platelet-rich plasma was recognized by only 30%.
- The primary perceived barriers to regenerative orthopedic therapies were cost (72%), lack of insurance coverage (62%), and doubts about effectiveness (59%).
- Physicians were the main medical information source for 71% of respondents, and 63% would consider a physician-recommended treatment.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Objective To assess awareness, self-rated knowledge, treatment perceptions, and perceived barriers concerning regenerative orthopedic therapies. Methods An anonymous, opt-in, cross-sectional online survey of 100 US adults was analyzed using unweighted descriptive statistics. Results Mean age was 63.5 years; 64% were female. Sixty percent reported prior awareness, while 77% rated their knowledge as little or none. Stem cell therapy was recognized by 84% and platelet-rich plasma by 30%. Physicians were the primary medical information source for 71%; 63% would consider physician-recommended treatment. Seventy-seven percent would pay nothing or less than $500 per session. Perceived barriers included cost (72%), lack of insurance coverage (62%), and doubts about effectiveness (59%). Conclusion Respondents reported low self-rated knowledge, uncertainty about treatment evidence and safety, and financial barriers. Findings support clear, balanced patient communication but are limited by self-selection and the sample’s demographic composition.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Orthopedic Reviews, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Urology
UrologyMedicine