Assessing Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Healthcare Workers in Saudi Arabia Towards Xenotransplantation: Insights From a Cross‐Sectional Survey

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The shortage of human organs for transplantation is a pressing global issue, propelling interest in xenotransplantation as a viable alternative. This study aims to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia regarding xenotransplantation, particularly in light of recent advancements in the field. METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey was conducted from June 5 to June 19, 2024, targeting Healthcare workers across various specialties in Saudi Arabia. A minimum sample size of 386 participants was determined, and data were collected using a validated survey administered via SurveyMonkey. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, t-tests, and logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate associations and identify predictors of KAP. RESULTS: A total of 2689 healthcare workers participated in the survey. The majority were female (58.6%) and under 25 years old (62.6%). The overall knowledge score was moderate (mean = 4.69/9), while attitudes toward xenotransplantation reflected low to moderate acceptance (mean = 2.1/5). Awareness of Islamic approval for human organ transplantation was noted in 57.3% of participants, with only 45.4% expecting future approval for xenotransplantation. Perceived barriers included psychological risks, social stigma, and ethical concerns. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the need for enhanced education and engagement among Healthcare workers regarding xenotransplantation in Saudi Arabia. Understanding local attitudes is crucial for the successful implementation of xenotransplantation technologies, considering the unique cultural and ethical landscape of the region. Further research is warranted to explore the implications of these findings for policy and practice in xenotransplantation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.