May 28, 2025 • 17 mins
Navigating chronic knee pain from osteoarthritis drives millions to seek solutions beyond conventional treatments. When patients turn to innovative approaches like stem cell therapy, they embark on a journey filled with hope, uncertainty, and personal discovery that extends far beyond the clinical outcomes.
Drawing from groundbreaking qualitative research, we reveal the stark contrast between what patients expect from stem cell treatment for knee osteoarthritis and what they actually experience afterward. The findings challenge our understanding of treatment success and patient satisfaction in profound ways. Most surprisingly, many patients report satisfaction with their treatment experience even when their pain relief falls short of expectations – suggesting that value extends beyond mere symptom improvement.
Before treatment, patients demonstrate remarkable proactivity, conducting extensive research and actively participating in their healthcare decisions. They approach stem cell therapy with tempered optimism, balancing hope against the known uncertainty. After treatment, many face unexpectedly intense side effects despite being informed about potential swelling and pain. "My whole leg blew up," recounted one participant, highlighting the gap between intellectual understanding and lived experience.
Perhaps most fascinating is the enduring hope that characterizes the patient journey. Even twelve months post-treatment, many continue to believe further improvement lies ahead – challenging conventional clinical timeframes. This persistence reveals how deeply personal the healing journey becomes, transcending objective measures of success.
For anyone contemplating alternative treatments for knee pain, caring for someone who is, or simply interested in the human side of emerging therapies, these insights illuminate the complex interplay between expectations, experience, and satisfaction. The question remains: where does the treatment end and the human experience begin? Listen now to understand the full spectrum of what patients navigate when pursuing innovative solutions for chronic pain.
Disclaimer:
The information provided in this podcast is for educational purposes only and is not intended as medical advice. Always consult with a qualified healthcare professional before making changes to your supplement regimen or health routine. Individual needs and reactions vary, so it’s important to make informed decisions with the guidance of your physician.
Connect with Us:
If you enjoyed today’s episode, be sure to subscribe, leave us a review, and share it with someone who might benefit. For more insights and updates, visit our website at Lifewellmd.com.
Stay Informed, Stay Healthy:
Remember, informed choices lead to better health. Until next time, be well and take care of yourself.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, let's dive in.
Today we're tackling somethingreally important chronic knee
pain from osteoarthritis.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Yeah, it affects so many people.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
But we're going beyond just the medical side.
We want to explore what it'sactually like for patients who
are thinking about and thengetting a novel treatment.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Really getting into the human experience.
Exactly, really getting intothe human experience.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Exactly so.
If you're dealing with kneepain yourself, or maybe looking
at different options, or justcurious about what patients go
through with newer therapies,this deep dive is definitely for
you.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
And we're focusing specifically on stem cell
therapy for knee osteoarthritis.
We want to unpack what patientsexpect going in versus what
they actually experienceafterwards.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Because osteoarthritis I mean it's so
widespread often reallydebilitating.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
For sure.
And the usual paths pain meds,pt, maybe even a full knee
replacement they all have theirlimitations right or potential
downsides people worry about.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Which is why these alternative approaches get so
much attention, especially oneslike stem cell therapy, that are
aiming to potentially modifythe disease itself, not just
mask the symptoms.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Right, and that's a key difference.
Now most of the research hasbeen on the science, the cells.
Does it work clinically, whichis crucial, obviously?
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Of course.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
But there hasn't been as much focus on the patient's
actual journey.
You know what are their hopes,what are they worried about,
what's the day-to-day reality?
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Which makes our source material for today really
valuable.
We're drawing from aqualitative study done in
Australia and it specificallylooked at the perspectives of
patients getting this therapyfor knee OA.
It's one of the first studiesto really dig deep into that
point of view.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
So our mission for this deep dive is pretty
straightforward Use thisresearch to understand the gap
or the connection betweenpatient expectations before
treatment and their actualexperiences a year down the line
.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Okay, great, so let's start with the source itself.
What kind of study are wetalking about?
Who did they actually speak to?
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Sure.
So it was a qualitative study.
That means they weren'tcrunching big numbers.
They were aiming for rich,detailed stories, understanding
people's perspectives in depth.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
More about the why and how.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Exactly.
They use semi-structuredinterviews think guided
conversations, not rigid surveyswith two groups of patients in
Australia dealing with kneeosteoarthritis and undergoing
stem cell therapy.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Okay, two groups Group one.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Group one was the expectations group 15 people and
the key thing is theyinterviewed them before any
treatment started.
They'd agreed to it but hadn'thad the cells yet.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Ah, so capturing that pre-treatment mindset makes
sense.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Yep, and then group two was the experiences group.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Also 15 people.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Also 15,?
Yes, but these folks wereinterviewed 12 months after
their first stem cell treatment.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
A full year later.
Okay, Right.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
So that gives enough time to see you know what the
reality looked like after livingwith it for a while.
The process often involvedgetting stem cells from fat
tissue lipo harvest.
It's called, then injectionsinto the knee, sometimes more
than one.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Got it.
So two distinct snapshotsbefore and after.
Let's dig into that.
Before picture.
First, the expectations group.
What were they thinking goinginto this?
What were the main themes?
Speaker 2 (03:15):
The researchers pulled out three main themes
from those pre-treatmentinterviews, and the first one
really reflects the nature ofseeking out this kind of newer
therapy Patients expected to bereally actively involved.
They felt they had to takeownership.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Actively involved.
What did that look like forthem?
More than just showing up forappointments, oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Much more.
B-stem cell therapy isn't, youknow, the standard first-line
treatment everywhere?
Yet Many felt they had to drivethe process themselves.
They were doing a lot of theirown research.
Like felt they had to drive theprocess themselves.
They were doing a lot of theirown research.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Like online talking to people.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Exactly Online deep dives, reading articles, maybe
even looking at clinics overseas.
Sometimes they weren't justpassively receiving care, they
were actively seeking thisspecific option.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
That totally tracks.
If your doctor doesn'timmediately suggest it, you
become your own investigator,right.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Precisely and, interestingly, they generally
felt pretty well informed by thetime they committed, both from
their own research and from theclinic staff explaining things.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
So they felt empowered by the information.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
It seems so.
The study mentioned examples ofparticipants feeling
comfortable just calling theclinic with questions.
It's to just a sense ofpartnership, not just being told
what to do.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Okay, so expectation one I need to be engaged, I
expect to be engaged, I'mdriving this.
What was the second bigexpectation?
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Well, no surprise here.
The second theme was that thetreatment would actually improve
their symptoms.
That was the main driver.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
And what kind of improvements were top of mind?
Less pain, moving better.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Yes, exactly that.
Less pain was huge, obviouslybeing able to move more freely.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Just general comfort in the knee.
Getting back to activities Now.
Was this like a certainty forthem this will fix my knee, or
was it more nuanced?
Speaker 2 (04:57):
That's a really important point.
It was often more nuanced.
For many, it came across moreas a strong hope rather than a
firm, guaranteed expectation.
Oh, ok, they seemed aware itwasn't a magic bullet, that it
didn't work for absolutelyeveryone.
The study mentions this figurelike a 70 percent success rate.
Sometimes came up indiscussions.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
And patients mentioned that.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Yeah, they echoed that uncertainty.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
One person was quoted saying something like I'm
hopeful my body will be in oneof the 70 percent that grows
cartilage.
Another specifically said I'mexpecting.
I'm hoping you know hope ratherthan expect that it would keep
their knee going for years.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
That difference between expecting and hoping.
That says a lot about goinginto something that isn't a
guaranteed fix.
Very insightful.
What about the third theme fromthis group?
Speaker 2 (05:46):
The third theme was their assessment of risk versus
reward.
Basically, they felt thepotential benefits outweighed
the perceived risks.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
So they were definitely thinking about the
risks involved.
It wasn't all positive thinking.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Oh, absolutely.
They considered the generalrisks of any medical procedure,
but also specific ones like whatif it just doesn't work?
That's a big one in efficacy.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
And the cost.
I imagine these aren't alwayscheap.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Exactly the financial investment was a factor they
weighed, and potential, thoughusually low, risk of infection.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
But despite those potential downsides, the
potential upsides still won outfor them.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
It did in their calculation.
The chance to reduce pain,improve mobility and maybe
crucially, avoid or delay majorsurgery like a knee replacement
that potential payoff seemedworth the gamble.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
They compared it directly to knee replacement.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Often yes, and in that comparison they sometimes
saw knee replacement as havingits own set of significant risks
maybe not getting full range ofmotion back, longer recovery,
surgical complications.
One participant mentioned thatspecifically, saying you don't
seem to get the full range backafter replacement.
Another just saw stem cells asa less intrusive solution.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
So it sounds like a very conscious weighing of
options.
They looked at the pros, thecons, the uncertainties and
decided this path.
This novel therapy was thepreferred risk, especially
versus major surgery.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
That's really the essence of it.
You know, like one person putit, it could go really well or
it could not work at all, butthat's a risk I'm willing to
take.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
That's powerful.
Ok, so that paints a clearpicture of the mindset going in
proactive, hopeful for reliefand seeing the potential
benefits as worth the knownrisks and uncertainties.
Now let's flip the coin.
The Experiences Groupinterviewed a year after
treatment.
What was their reality?
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Okay, shifting to the Experiences Group, again three
main themes popped up, and thefirst one deals directly with
the immediate aftermath, thesymptoms they experienced right
after the treatment.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
The side effects, basically Post-injection stuff.
Was that a big part of theirmemory?
Speaker 2 (07:49):
It definitely was.
Swelling and pain after theinjections were commonly
reported and generally they hadbeen told this might happen.
The clinics informed them.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Okay, so they knew it was a possibility, but I sense
a but coming.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Exactly.
Here's where it getsinteresting.
Even though they knew swelling,for instance, could happen,
many were genuinely surprised bythe reality of it, maybe where
it swelled up, or how severe itgot or how long it actually
lasted.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Ah, so the information didn't quite prepare
them for the lived experience.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Precisely Knowing about a potential side effect on
paper is one thing, dealingwith your whole leg blowing up
is quite another.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Can you share any examples from this study?
What did people actually say?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
The descriptions are quite vivid.
One person talked about theirankle swelling up major, being
quite big, painful to kneel onand lasting for about a week or
two.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Wow, okay, wow.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Okay.
Another said their whole legblew up, making the knee stiff,
and described it as reallyawkward, impacting basic things
like using the toilet.
It wasn't just minor sorenessfor everyone.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Yeah, that sounds pretty disruptive.
So the takeaway isn't that theyweren't informed, but that the
intensity or impact of thosesymptoms could still catch them
off guard.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
That's a great way to put it.
Information doesn't alwaystranslate into experiential
preparedness.
The study also mentioned asmall subgroup just 5% who'd had
microfracture surgery beforethe stem cell injection.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Okay, what's that?
Speaker 2 (09:15):
It's a procedure to try and stimulate cartilage
growth by making tiny holes inthe bone.
For those few patients, theirrecovery time post-injection was
longer and it caused moredisruption to their lives,
things like child care orkeeping up with rehab.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Ray, adding another layer for some.
Okay, understood what was thesecond major theme from the
experiences group, looking backafter a year.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
The second theme was all about their satisfaction
with the treatment overall.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
The big question so a year out, how did they feel,
was it worth it?
The big question so a year out,how did they feel, was it worth
it?
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Broadly speaking, yes , most participants reported
general satisfaction.
A good number said they'd do itagain or that they actively
recommend it to other people.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Really so positive feedback overall.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
You hear things in the quotes like I reckon it was
good, I reckon it was successfuland that's all I do is
recommend it.
Was that satisfaction mostlytied to seeing big improvements
like less pain, better function?
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Often, yes, there was definitely a strong link.
People who felt satisfiedfrequently pointed to specific
positive outcomes.
You know, being able to runagain pain-free when they
couldn't before.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Concrete results.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Right, or someone mentioned getting back to
high-impact dancing Things thatclearly improved their quality
of life.
Those tangible benefits werepowerful motivators for
satisfaction.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
You can really feel the relief in those examples
getting back to something youlove.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Absolutely, but and this is probably the most
fascinating finding in thistheme, maybe in the whole study-
Uh-oh, what is it?
Some participants reportedbeing satisfied with the process
, the clinic, the care theyreceived, even if they didn't
actually get the symptom reliefthey were hoping for.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Wait, really Satisfied, even if their knee
didn't feel much better.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Exactly, it seems counterintuitive, right?
The study authors reallyhighlighted this.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
How did they display that?
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Well, one participant basically said the job they did
was excellent, the follow-upand all.
I just didn't get the result.
I was hoping for no realimprovement, but they still
value the care experience Wow.
So the huge takeaway there isthat patient satisfaction isn't
just about the clinical numbersor the final outcome on an x-ray
.
It's much more holistic.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
The quality of care, the communication, feeling
supported.
That matters hugely.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
It really does, especially perhaps with these
newer therapies where outcomesmight be less certain, that
overall experience counts for alot.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
That's a massive insight for anyone in health
care.
Okay, so satisfaction iscomplex.
What was the third and finaltheme from the experiences group
?
Speaker 2 (11:44):
The third theme was this ongoing anticipation of
further improvement.
Even a full year after thetreatment, many participants
still held on to a belief, or atleast a hope, that things would
continue to get better.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
So they didn't see the 12-month mark as the final
result.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Not necessarily In their minds.
The healing or regenerationprocess might still be ongoing.
They hadn't given up hope formore progress.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Is there any basis for that, or is it just wishful
thinking?
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Well, interestingly, the study points out that this
isn't entirely unfounded.
There is some evidencesuggesting that improvements
from stem cell therapy cansometimes continue for several
years post-treatment.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
Ah, okay, so that belief has some support.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
It seems so, and you saw this reflected in what
participants said.
They talked about needing moretime or hoping it will continue
to improve.
Some even mentioned hearingabout others who were slow
burners and saw results emergeover a longer period.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
That persistent hope even a year later.
It really speaks to thenarrative around these therapies
, maybe the potential forongoing change.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
It absolutely does, and it connects right back to
those initial hopes they carriedinto the treatment that we
talked about earlier.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Okay, so let's try and tie these two perspectives
together.
Now we have the expectationsbefore, the experiences after.
What does the study suggestabout how those two relate?
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Well, the discussion part of the study really
emphasizes how those initialpatient expectations can
profoundly shape their wholeexperience and maybe even how
they interpret the outcome lateron.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Right, and it brings back that distinction you made
earlier.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Exactly Between expectation believing something
will happen and hope wanting itto happen, but knowing it might
not.
That nuance seems reallyimportant here.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
And did the study find that expectations generally
lined up neatly with theexperiences?
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Not always no, and this study's findings actually
echo other research in this area.
It seems patients sometimesoverestimate the potential
benefits or maybe moresignificantly underestimate the
potential downsides, like theseverity of those post-injection
symptoms we discussed comparedto what they actually go through
.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Which really highlights the need for what
Better communication fromclinics.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Absolutely Crystal clear, realistic, evidence-based
information up front.
Managing those expectationseffectively is crucial, helping
patients form a picture that'sas accurate as possible.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Because, like we saw with that surprising
satisfaction, finding a mismatchbetween expectation and reality
can really affect the wholeexperience, regardless of the
objective clinical result.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
Precisely.
Satisfaction isn't just did mypain score go down, it's tied up
with the entire process.
The quality of interactions,feeling informed, feeling
listened to.
All these factors are critical,especially when you're dealing
with something new and maybe abit uncertain like stem cell
therapy.
Understanding all those layersis key to truly patient-centered
(14:36):
care.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
It really puts the person back into the patient
data, doesn't it?
So, thinking about the studyitself, what were its main
strengths and weaknesses?
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Well, its biggest strength is definitely giving us
this first really valuablequalitative look at the patient
side of the story for thisspecific treatment.
Getting those direct voices,those personal narratives, is
incredibly insightful.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Yeah, you can't get that from numbers alone.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Exactly, and the limitation.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Adjusting generalizability.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
You got it, it's a qualitative study, remember
relatively small sample 30people total from clinics in
Australia.
So you can't take thesefindings and say this is exactly
what every stem cell patienteverywhere experiences or
expects.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
It's a snapshot, not the whole picture.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Right.
It's a really importantstarting point, raising key
themes that definitely need moreinvestigation, probably in
larger, more diverse groups ofpatients and settings.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Well, this deep dive into how patients see stem cell
therapy for knee osteoarthritis,their hopes going in, their
reality coming out, it's beenincredibly revealing, I think.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
It really highlights the complexity of the patient
journey, doesn't it?
It starts way before the clinic, with their own research and
hopes.
It includes the nitty gritty oftreatment, side effects which
can hit harder than expected.
And then there's satisfaction,which is about so much more than
just symptom relief.
It's tied to the care, thecommunication, and often there's
(15:58):
that enduring hope forcontinued improvement long after
.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
It just hammers home how vital clear communication,
realistic expectations andgenuinely patient-focused care
are, especially when navigatingthese newer treatment frontiers.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Understanding these perspectives is just fundamental
if we want to support patientsproperly through these journeys.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Absolutely so.
Reflecting on everything we'vecovered, how expectations, color
experience, how satisfaction ismultifaceted and how hope can
persist, it really leaves youwith a thought, doesn't it?
How much of a patient's overallsatisfaction, their perceived
success, with a therapy likethis is purely done with the
biological changes from thetreatment itself, and how much
(16:40):
is interwoven with their mindsetgoing in the quality of the
care relationship and thatpowerful ongoing hope for a
better future.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
That's a fascinating question to chew on.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Definitely something for you, the listener, to
consider, whether you'rethinking about these therapies
yourself or just learning moreabout them.
Where does the treatment endand the human experience begin?
Okay, let's dive in.
Today we're tackling somethingreally important chronic knee
pain from osteoarthritis.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Yeah, it affects so many people.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
But we're going beyond just the medical side.
We want to explore what it'sactually like for patients who
are thinking about and thengetting a novel treatment.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Really getting into the human experience.
Exactly, really getting intothe human experience.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Exactly so.
If you're dealing with kneepain yourself, or maybe looking
at different options, or justcurious about what patients go
through with newer therapies,this deep dive is definitely for
you.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
And we're focusing specifically on stem cell
therapy for knee osteoarthritis.
We want to unpack what patientsexpect going in versus what
they actually experienceafterwards.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Because osteoarthritis I mean it's so
widespread often reallydebilitating.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
For sure.
And the usual paths pain meds,pt, maybe even a full knee
replacement they all have theirlimitations right or potential
downsides people worry about.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Which is why these alternative approaches get so
much attention, especially oneslike stem cell therapy, that are
aiming to potentially modifythe disease itself, not just
mask the symptoms.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Right, and that's a key difference.
Now most of the research hasbeen on the science, the cells.
Does it work clinically, whichis crucial, obviously?
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Of course.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
But there hasn't been as much focus on the patient's
actual journey.
You know what are their hopes,what are they worried about,
what's the day-to-day reality?
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Which makes our source material for today really
valuable.
We're drawing from aqualitative study done in
Australia and it specificallylooked at the perspectives of
patients getting this therapyfor knee OA.
It's one of the first studiesto really dig deep into that
point of view.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
So our mission for this deep dive is pretty
straightforward Use thisresearch to understand the gap
or the connection betweenpatient expectations before
treatment and their actualexperiences a year down the line
.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Okay, great, so let's start with the source itself.
What kind of study are wetalking about?
Who did they actually speak to?
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Sure.
So it was a qualitative study.
That means they weren'tcrunching big numbers.
They were aiming for rich,detailed stories, understanding
people's perspectives in depth.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
More about the why and how.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Exactly.
They use semi-structuredinterviews think guided
conversations, not rigid surveyswith two groups of patients in
Australia dealing with kneeosteoarthritis and undergoing
stem cell therapy.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Okay, two groups Group one.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Group one was the expectations group 15 people and
the key thing is theyinterviewed them before any
treatment started.
They'd agreed to it but hadn'thad the cells yet.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Ah, so capturing that pre-treatment mindset makes
sense.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Yep, and then group two was the experiences group.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Also 15 people.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Also 15,?
Yes, but these folks wereinterviewed 12 months after
their first stem cell treatment.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
A full year later.
Okay, Right.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
So that gives enough time to see you know what the
reality looked like after livingwith it for a while.
The process often involvedgetting stem cells from fat
tissue lipo harvest.
It's called, then injectionsinto the knee, sometimes more
than one.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Got it.
So two distinct snapshotsbefore and after.
Let's dig into that.
Before picture.
First, the expectations group.
What were they thinking goinginto this?
What were the main themes?
Speaker 2 (03:15):
The researchers pulled out three main themes
from those pre-treatmentinterviews, and the first one
really reflects the nature ofseeking out this kind of newer
therapy Patients expected to bereally actively involved.
They felt they had to takeownership.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Actively involved.
What did that look like forthem?
More than just showing up forappointments, oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Much more.
B-stem cell therapy isn't, youknow, the standard first-line
treatment everywhere?
Yet Many felt they had to drivethe process themselves.
They were doing a lot of theirown research.
Like felt they had to drive theprocess themselves.
They were doing a lot of theirown research.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Like online talking to people.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Exactly Online deep dives, reading articles, maybe
even looking at clinics overseas.
Sometimes they weren't justpassively receiving care, they
were actively seeking thisspecific option.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
That totally tracks.
If your doctor doesn'timmediately suggest it, you
become your own investigator,right.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Precisely and, interestingly, they generally
felt pretty well informed by thetime they committed, both from
their own research and from theclinic staff explaining things.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
So they felt empowered by the information.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
It seems so.
The study mentioned examples ofparticipants feeling
comfortable just calling theclinic with questions.
It's to just a sense ofpartnership, not just being told
what to do.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Okay, so expectation one I need to be engaged, I
expect to be engaged, I'mdriving this.
What was the second bigexpectation?
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Well, no surprise here.
The second theme was that thetreatment would actually improve
their symptoms.
That was the main driver.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
And what kind of improvements were top of mind?
Less pain, moving better.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Yes, exactly that.
Less pain was huge, obviouslybeing able to move more freely.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Just general comfort in the knee.
Getting back to activities Now.
Was this like a certainty forthem this will fix my knee, or
was it more nuanced?
Speaker 2 (04:57):
That's a really important point.
It was often more nuanced.
For many, it came across moreas a strong hope rather than a
firm, guaranteed expectation.
Oh, ok, they seemed aware itwasn't a magic bullet, that it
didn't work for absolutelyeveryone.
The study mentions this figurelike a 70 percent success rate.
Sometimes came up indiscussions.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
And patients mentioned that.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Yeah, they echoed that uncertainty.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
One person was quoted saying something like I'm
hopeful my body will be in oneof the 70 percent that grows
cartilage.
Another specifically said I'mexpecting.
I'm hoping you know hope ratherthan expect that it would keep
their knee going for years.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
That difference between expecting and hoping.
That says a lot about goinginto something that isn't a
guaranteed fix.
Very insightful.
What about the third theme fromthis group?
Speaker 2 (05:46):
The third theme was their assessment of risk versus
reward.
Basically, they felt thepotential benefits outweighed
the perceived risks.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
So they were definitely thinking about the
risks involved.
It wasn't all positive thinking.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Oh, absolutely.
They considered the generalrisks of any medical procedure,
but also specific ones like whatif it just doesn't work?
That's a big one in efficacy.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
And the cost.
I imagine these aren't alwayscheap.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Exactly the financial investment was a factor they
weighed, and potential, thoughusually low, risk of infection.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
But despite those potential downsides, the
potential upsides still won outfor them.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
It did in their calculation.
The chance to reduce pain,improve mobility and maybe
crucially, avoid or delay majorsurgery like a knee replacement
that potential payoff seemedworth the gamble.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
They compared it directly to knee replacement.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Often yes, and in that comparison they sometimes
saw knee replacement as havingits own set of significant risks
maybe not getting full range ofmotion back, longer recovery,
surgical complications.
One participant mentioned thatspecifically, saying you don't
seem to get the full range backafter replacement.
Another just saw stem cells asa less intrusive solution.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
So it sounds like a very conscious weighing of
options.
They looked at the pros, thecons, the uncertainties and
decided this path.
This novel therapy was thepreferred risk, especially
versus major surgery.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
That's really the essence of it.
You know, like one person putit, it could go really well or
it could not work at all, butthat's a risk I'm willing to
take.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
That's powerful.
Ok, so that paints a clearpicture of the mindset going in
proactive, hopeful for reliefand seeing the potential
benefits as worth the knownrisks and uncertainties.
Now let's flip the coin.
The Experiences Groupinterviewed a year after
treatment.
What was their reality?
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Okay, shifting to the Experiences Group, again three
main themes popped up, and thefirst one deals directly with
the immediate aftermath, thesymptoms they experienced right
after the treatment.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
The side effects, basically Post-injection stuff.
Was that a big part of theirmemory?
Speaker 2 (07:49):
It definitely was.
Swelling and pain after theinjections were commonly
reported and generally they hadbeen told this might happen.
The clinics informed them.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
Okay, so they knew it was a possibility, but I sense
a but coming.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Exactly.
Here's where it getsinteresting.
Even though they knew swelling,for instance, could happen,
many were genuinely surprised bythe reality of it, maybe where
it swelled up, or how severe itgot or how long it actually
lasted.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Ah, so the information didn't quite prepare
them for the lived experience.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Precisely Knowing about a potential side effect on
paper is one thing, dealingwith your whole leg blowing up
is quite another.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Can you share any examples from this study?
What did people actually say?
Speaker 2 (08:33):
The descriptions are quite vivid.
One person talked about theirankle swelling up major, being
quite big, painful to kneel onand lasting for about a week or
two.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
Wow, okay, wow.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Okay.
Another said their whole legblew up, making the knee stiff,
and described it as reallyawkward, impacting basic things
like using the toilet.
It wasn't just minor sorenessfor everyone.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Yeah, that sounds pretty disruptive.
So the takeaway isn't that theyweren't informed, but that the
intensity or impact of thosesymptoms could still catch them
off guard.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
That's a great way to put it.
Information doesn't alwaystranslate into experiential
preparedness.
The study also mentioned asmall subgroup just 5% who'd had
microfracture surgery beforethe stem cell injection.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Okay, what's that?
Speaker 2 (09:15):
It's a procedure to try and stimulate cartilage
growth by making tiny holes inthe bone.
For those few patients, theirrecovery time post-injection was
longer and it caused moredisruption to their lives,
things like child care orkeeping up with rehab.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Ray, adding another layer for some.
Okay, understood what was thesecond major theme from the
experiences group, looking backafter a year.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
The second theme was all about their satisfaction
with the treatment overall.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
The big question so a year out, how did they feel,
was it worth it?
The big question so a year out,how did they feel, was it worth
it?
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Broadly speaking, yes , most participants reported
general satisfaction.
A good number said they'd do itagain or that they actively
recommend it to other people.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Really so positive feedback overall.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
You hear things in the quotes like I reckon it was
good, I reckon it was successfuland that's all I do is
recommend it.
Was that satisfaction mostlytied to seeing big improvements
like less pain, better function?
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Often, yes, there was definitely a strong link.
People who felt satisfiedfrequently pointed to specific
positive outcomes.
You know, being able to runagain pain-free when they
couldn't before.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
Concrete results.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Right, or someone mentioned getting back to
high-impact dancing Things thatclearly improved their quality
of life.
Those tangible benefits werepowerful motivators for
satisfaction.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
You can really feel the relief in those examples
getting back to something youlove.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Absolutely, but and this is probably the most
fascinating finding in thistheme, maybe in the whole study-
Uh-oh, what is it?
Some participants reportedbeing satisfied with the process
, the clinic, the care theyreceived, even if they didn't
actually get the symptom reliefthey were hoping for.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Wait, really Satisfied, even if their knee
didn't feel much better.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Exactly, it seems counterintuitive, right?
The study authors reallyhighlighted this.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
How did they display that?
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Well, one participant basically said the job they did
was excellent, the follow-upand all.
I just didn't get the result.
I was hoping for no realimprovement, but they still
value the care experience Wow.
So the huge takeaway there isthat patient satisfaction isn't
just about the clinical numbersor the final outcome on an x-ray
.
It's much more holistic.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
The quality of care, the communication, feeling
supported.
That matters hugely.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
It really does, especially perhaps with these
newer therapies where outcomesmight be less certain, that
overall experience counts for alot.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
That's a massive insight for anyone in health
care.
Okay, so satisfaction iscomplex.
What was the third and finaltheme from the experiences group
?
Speaker 2 (11:44):
The third theme was this ongoing anticipation of
further improvement.
Even a full year after thetreatment, many participants
still held on to a belief, or atleast a hope, that things would
continue to get better.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
So they didn't see the 12-month mark as the final
result.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Not necessarily In their minds.
The healing or regenerationprocess might still be ongoing.
They hadn't given up hope formore progress.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Is there any basis for that, or is it just wishful
thinking?
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Well, interestingly, the study points out that this
isn't entirely unfounded.
There is some evidencesuggesting that improvements
from stem cell therapy cansometimes continue for several
years post-treatment.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
Ah, okay, so that belief has some support.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
It seems so, and you saw this reflected in what
participants said.
They talked about needing moretime or hoping it will continue
to improve.
Some even mentioned hearingabout others who were slow
burners and saw results emergeover a longer period.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
That persistent hope even a year later.
It really speaks to thenarrative around these therapies
, maybe the potential forongoing change.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
It absolutely does, and it connects right back to
those initial hopes they carriedinto the treatment that we
talked about earlier.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Okay, so let's try and tie these two perspectives
together.
Now we have the expectationsbefore, the experiences after.
What does the study suggestabout how those two relate?
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Well, the discussion part of the study really
emphasizes how those initialpatient expectations can
profoundly shape their wholeexperience and maybe even how
they interpret the outcome lateron.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Right, and it brings back that distinction you made
earlier.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
Exactly Between expectation believing something
will happen and hope wanting itto happen, but knowing it might
not.
That nuance seems reallyimportant here.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
And did the study find that expectations generally
lined up neatly with theexperiences?
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Not always no, and this study's findings actually
echo other research in this area.
It seems patients sometimesoverestimate the potential
benefits or maybe moresignificantly underestimate the
potential downsides, like theseverity of those post-injection
symptoms we discussed comparedto what they actually go through
.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Which really highlights the need for what
Better communication fromclinics.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Absolutely Crystal clear, realistic, evidence-based
information up front.
Managing those expectationseffectively is crucial, helping
patients form a picture that'sas accurate as possible.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Because, like we saw with that surprising
satisfaction, finding a mismatchbetween expectation and reality
can really affect the wholeexperience, regardless of the
objective clinical result.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
Precisely.
Satisfaction isn't just did mypain score go down, it's tied up
with the entire process.
The quality of interactions,feeling informed, feeling
listened to.
All these factors are critical,especially when you're dealing
with something new and maybe abit uncertain like stem cell
therapy.
Understanding all those layersis key to truly patient-centered
(14:36):
care.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
It really puts the person back into the patient
data, doesn't it?
So, thinking about the studyitself, what were its main
strengths and weaknesses?
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Well, its biggest strength is definitely giving us
this first really valuablequalitative look at the patient
side of the story for thisspecific treatment.
Getting those direct voices,those personal narratives, is
incredibly insightful.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Yeah, you can't get that from numbers alone.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Exactly, and the limitation.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Adjusting generalizability.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
You got it, it's a qualitative study, remember
relatively small sample 30people total from clinics in
Australia.
So you can't take thesefindings and say this is exactly
what every stem cell patienteverywhere experiences or
expects.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
It's a snapshot, not the whole picture.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Right.
It's a really importantstarting point, raising key
themes that definitely need moreinvestigation, probably in
larger, more diverse groups ofpatients and settings.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Well, this deep dive into how patients see stem cell
therapy for knee osteoarthritis,their hopes going in, their
reality coming out, it's beenincredibly revealing, I think.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
It really highlights the complexity of the patient
journey, doesn't it?
It starts way before the clinic, with their own research and
hopes.
It includes the nitty gritty oftreatment, side effects which
can hit harder than expected.
And then there's satisfaction,which is about so much more than
just symptom relief.
It's tied to the care, thecommunication, and often there's
(15:58):
that enduring hope forcontinued improvement long after
.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
It just hammers home how vital clear communication,
realistic expectations andgenuinely patient-focused care
are, especially when navigatingthese newer treatment frontiers.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Understanding these perspectives is just fundamental
if we want to support patientsproperly through these journeys.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Absolutely so.
Reflecting on everything we'vecovered, how expectations, color
experience, how satisfaction ismultifaceted and how hope can
persist, it really leaves youwith a thought, doesn't it?
How much of a patient's overallsatisfaction, their perceived
success, with a therapy likethis is purely done with the
biological changes from thetreatment itself, and how much
(16:40):
is interwoven with their mindsetgoing in the quality of the
care relationship and thatpowerful ongoing hope for a
better future.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
That's a fascinating question to chew on.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Definitely something for you, the listener, to
consider, whether you'rethinking about these therapies
yourself or just learning moreabout them.
Where does the treatment endand the human experience begin?
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com