Peddling promise? An analysis of private umbilical cord blood banking company websites in Canada

Private umbilical cord blood banking is growing around the world. A family’s decision to bank cord blood publicly or privately can be influenced by numerous sources including healthcare practitioners, personal networks, the popular press, social media and marketing discourse from private entities. Issues have been raised concerning how private banks market their services, particularly with regards to the likelihood of use and for what purposes cord blood can be used. The objective of this study was to analyze the marketing on the seven company websites offering private cord blood storage in Canada. We performed a mix of content and general qualitative analysis on the seven websites. Our analysis shows substantial hype around cord blood uses, amplifying the promise of speculative uses and distorting the likelihood of use. Findings show that this promotional messaging often deploys communication strategies which draw on testimonials and emotionally-charged narratives. Questions should be asked about whether the promissory aspects of these websites constitute breaches of Canadian law or regulation. Careful monitoring of the private cord blood space is important for ensuring that the Canadian public is adequately and accurately informed of the services being offered.

Identifying Barriers to Umbilical Cord Blood Banking in Jordan: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Obstetricians

Background: The expansion of umbilical cord blood (UCB) banking necessitates a greater understanding among obstetricians in order to responsibly inform parents about UCB collection and storage. Gaps in knowledge can compromise public UCB banking efforts and result in missed opportunities and public misguidance about UCB banking. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was disseminated among obstetricians in Amman, Jordan. The questionnaire aimed to evaluate obstetricians’ knowledge of and attitude toward UCB storage and applications, as well as current practice patterns. Results: Ninety-six obstetricians responded (55% response rate), most of whom were Jordanian (71%), female (83%), resident physicians (59%), and working in either private (43%) or public (42%) hospitals, with an average of 6.5 years in practice. Only 26% had personal experience in UCB collection, and 20% had received education on UCB collection. Nearly 75% said their hospitals lacked standard operating procedures, guidelines, or infectious disease screening for UCB units. Overall knowledge about UCB was moderate, and the internet was the most common information source (54%). Overall attitudes were positive, especially in desire to expand personal knowledge about UCB, integrate information into medical residency curricula, and establish a public UCB bank in Jordan. However, many believed that ethical (61%) and religious (56%) controversies surround UCB donation. Conclusion: This study identifies deficiencies in quality control and experience in UCB collection in Jordan, as well as areas of inadequate knowledge and ethical controversies among obstetricians. These issues contribute to public misinformation and limit public UCB donation programs, and requires improved medical education on this topic