Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitudes of Medical Residents Towards Nanomedicine: Defining the Gap

  • Najib NassaniEmail author
  • Youssef El-Douaihy
  • Yana Khotsyna
  • Thinzar Shwe
  • Suzanne El-Sayegh
Original Research


Even though the general public opinion towards nanotechnology applications to health has been studied, medical residents’ opinions remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perception, knowledge, and attitude of medical residents towards nanomedicine using a 35-item questionnaire. Correlations between intrinsic factors, heuristics, and attitude towards nanomedicine were analyzed using the χ2 test. Seventy medical residents participated. Nanomedicine was perceived as a developing field in its clinical trial stages. Responsibility for nanomedicine was attributed to scientists, whereas its ethical responsibility to physicians. The majority reported not having adequate access to information. A positive attitude towards nanomedicine was correlated with higher willingness to use nanomedicine to diagnose and treat patients (p < 0.05). Medical residents had a positive attitude towards nanomedicine. However, they lacked accurate knowledge in the field. Participants might have relied on availability heuristics to form their opinion. Formal education for the “handlers” of nanomedicine seems to be needed.


Nanomedicine Nanotechnology Heuristics 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    [ESF] European Science Foundation. Nanomedicine – an ESF–European Medical Research Councils (EMRC) forward look report. Strasbourg cedex: France ESF; 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tran S, DeGiovanni PJ, Piel B, Rai P. Cancer nanomedicine: a review of recent success in drug delivery. Clin Transl Med. 2017;6(1):44. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Etheridge ML, Campbell SA, Erdman AG, Haynes CL, Wolf SM, McCullough J. The big picture on small medicine: the state of nanomedicine products approved for use or in clinical trials. Nanomedicine. 2013;9(1):1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caló E, Khutoryanskiy VV. Biomedical applications of hydrogels: a review of patents and commercial products. Eur Polym J. 2015;65:252–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Floris A, Staal S, Lenk S, Staijen E, Kohlheyer D, Eijkel J, et al. A prefilled, ready-to-use electrophoresis based lab-on-a-chip device for monitoring lithium in blood. Lab Chip. 2010;10(14):1799–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jin R, Lin B, Li D, Ai H. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for MR imaging and therapy: design considerations and clinical applications. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2014;18:18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bottini M, Rosato N, Gloria F, Adanti S, Corradino N, Bergamaschi A, et al. Public optimism towards nanomedicine. Int J Nanomed. 2011;6:3473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res. 2004;6(4):395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res. 2005;7(6):659–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Einsiedel E (2005). In the public eye: the early landscape of nanotechnology among Canadian and US publics. First Impressions: understanding public views on emerging technologies, 99-117.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Priest S. The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res. 2006;8(5):563–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fujita Y, Yokoyama H, Abe S. Perception of nanotechnology among the general public in Japan—of the NRI Nanotechnology and Society Survey Project. Asia Pacific Nanotech Weekly. 2006;4(1–2).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol. 2006;1(3):153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih TJ, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4(2):91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V. Risk perceptions starting to shift? US citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. 2010;12(1):11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marikar FM, Ilangakoon PI, Jaliya SH, Jayasena LD, Kalavitigoda SK, Koralagedara KIS, et al. Sri Lankan medical undergraduates awareness of nanotechnology and its risks. Educ Res Int. 2014;2014:5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedman A, Nasir A. Nanotechnology and dermatology education in the United States: data from a pilot survey. J Drugs Dermatol: JDD. 2011;10(9):1037–41.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheufele DA, & Turney J (2006). Messages and heuristics: how audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. Engaging science: thoughts, deeds, analysis and action.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res. 2008;20(2):171–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18(5):546–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kanter SL. The future of academic medicine: what can academic medicine do about it? Acad Med. 2009;84(4):405–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sweeney AE. Nanomedicine concepts in the general medical curriculum: initiating a discussion. Int J Nanom. 2015;10:7319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hudson K, Lifton R, & Patrick-Lake B (2015). The precision medicine initiative cohort program—building a research foundation for 21st century medicine. Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) Working Group Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, ed. Accessed on 4/7/18Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quirola N, Marquez V, Tecpan, S, & Baltazar SE (2018). Didactic proposal to include nanoscience and nanotechnology at high school curriculum linking physics, chemistry and biology. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1043, No. 1, p. 012050). IOP Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blonder R, Sakhnini S. Finding the connections between a high-school chemistry curriculum and nano-scale science and technology. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2017;18(4):903–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jones MG, Blonder R, Gardner GE, Albe V, Falvo M, Chevrier J. Nanotechnology and nanoscale science: Educational challenges. Int J Sci Educ. 2013;35(9):1490–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Division of GastroenterologyUniversity of Illinois at Chicago College of MedicineChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra NorthwellStaten Island University Hospital Northwell HealthStaten IslandUSA

Personalised recommendations