title: The acceptability of nanocarriers for drug delivery in different contexts of use: perceptions of researchers and research trainees in the field of new technologies.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Despite marked optimism in the field of nanomedicine about the use of drug-delivery nanocarriers, uncertainties exist concerning nanocarriers' possible unintended impacts and effects. These uncertainties could affect user acceptance and acceptability. "Acceptance" refers to the intention to put a technology or a device to a specified use. "Acceptability" refers to a value judgment that accounts for acceptance. The objectives of this study were to characterize impact perception, acceptance, and acceptability in relation to drug-delivery nanocarriers in different contexts of use, and to explore relationships among these concepts.
  
  
  METHODS
  A sample of European and Canadian researchers and graduate research trainees active in the field of new technologies was recruited by targeted email invitation for participation in a web-based questionnaire study. The questionnaire presented scenarios for two contexts of use (lung cancer, seasonal flu) of drug-delivery nanocarriers with two compositions (carbon, synthetic DNA). Respondents' impact perception, acceptance, and acceptability judgment in relation to each kind of nanocarrier in each context of use were measured with Likert scale questions and scored using categorical values.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Two hundred and fourteen researchers and graduate research trainees completed the questionnaire. The results showed that nanocarrier composition influenced impact perception: as compared with the carbon nanocarrier impact perception, the positive impacts of the synthetic DNA nanocarrier were perceived as more significant and more likely to occur than its negative impacts. Composition did not influence acceptance or acceptability. Context of use significantly influenced acceptance and acceptability of both kinds of nanocarriers: researchers were more likely to accept the use of nanocarriers to treat lung cancer than the seasonal flu. The results also showed a significant relationship between acceptance and the perceived usefulness of the treatments.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Nanocarrier composition does not appear to influence acceptance or acceptability. On the other hand, the nanocarriers' perceived usefulness and context of use are both major factors in accounting for acceptance and acceptability.
authors.affiliation: Interdisciplinary Institute for Technological Innovation (3IT), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada ; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada ; Laboratoire Nanotechnologies et Nanosystèmes (LN2), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Sherbrooke, Canada ; Université de Lyon, Institut des Nanotechnologies de Lyon (INL), site École Centrale de Lyon, France.
authors.forename: Vanessa
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Chenel
authors.affiliation: Interdisciplinary Institute for Technological Innovation (3IT), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada ; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada ; Laboratoire Nanotechnologies et Nanosystèmes (LN2), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Sherbrooke, Canada.
authors.forename: Patrick
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Boissy
authors.affiliation: Interdisciplinary Institute for Technological Innovation (3IT), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada ; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada ; Laboratoire Nanotechnologies et Nanosystèmes (LN2), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Sherbrooke, Canada.
authors.forename: Marie-Sol
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Poirier
authors.affiliation: Laboratoire Nanotechnologies et Nanosystèmes (LN2), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Sherbrooke, Canada ; Université de Lyon, Institut des Nanotechnologies de Lyon (INL), site École Centrale de Lyon, France.
authors.forename: Jean-Pierre
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Cloarec
authors.affiliation: Interdisciplinary Institute for Technological Innovation (3IT), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada ; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada ; Laboratoire Nanotechnologies et Nanosystèmes (LN2), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Sherbrooke, Canada.
authors.forename: Johane
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Patenaude
mesh_terms: D002170:Canada; D004247:DNA / Q000008:administration & dosage; D004337:Drug Carriers / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000737:chemistry; D016503:Drug Delivery Systems / Q000379:methods*; D005060:Europe; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D007251:Influenza, Human / Q000188:drug therapy; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy; D050997:Nanomedicine / Q000379:methods*; D049329:Nanostructures; D010465:Perception; D012108:Research Personnel; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
chemical_list: D004337:Drug Carriers; D004247:DNA
keywords: E3LS; ELSI; acceptance; impact perception; nanomedicine; researchers’ perceptions
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2004 Feb;24(1):185-94
references.pmid: 15028010
references.citation: Appetite. 2007 Sep;49(2):459-66
references.pmid: 17442455
references.citation: Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2006 Dec 1;58(14):1456-9
references.pmid: 17070960
references.citation: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2009 Jan-Feb;1(1):2-5
references.pmid: 20049773
references.citation: Int J Nanomedicine. 2011;6:3473-85
references.pmid: 22267931
references.citation: Nanomedicine (Lond). 2011 Jun;6(4):681-91
references.pmid: 21506689
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2005 Jun;25(3):567-88
references.pmid: 16022691
references.citation: Int J Nanomedicine. 2010;5:803-9
references.pmid: 21042425
references.citation: Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Apr;21(2):293-315
references.pmid: 24728612
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 2006 Oct;24(10):1211-7
references.pmid: 17033654
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2007 Feb;27(1):59-69
references.pmid: 17362400
references.citation: Science. 1987 Apr 17;236(4799):280-5
references.pmid: 3563507
references.citation: J Biomed Inform. 2010 Feb;43(1):159-72
references.pmid: 19615467
references.citation: FASEB J. 2005 Mar;19(3):311-30
references.pmid: 15746175
references.citation: Nanomedicine (Lond). 2014 Jul;9(10):1475-86
references.pmid: 25253496