ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2011
Public attitudes toward ancillary information revealed by pharmacogenetic testing under limited information conditions.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adolescent and Young Adult Perspectives on Receiving Pathogenic or Likely Pathogenic Results in a Prospective Genomic Screening Clinical Trial.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- 'Research ethics · 2024Article
- Article
- Personalizing Personalized Medicine: The Confluence of Pharmacogenomics, a Person's Medication Experience and Ethics.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Parental Preferences about Policy Options Regarding Disclosure of Incidental Genetic Findings in Newborn Screening: Using Videos and the Internet to Educate and Obtain Input.International journal of neonatal screening · 2022Article
- A Scoping Review of Attitudes and Experiences with Pharmacogenomic Testing among Patients and the General Public: Implications for Patient Counseling.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2021Article
- Revisiting Secondary Information Related to Pharmacogenetic Testing.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) in Clinical Genetics Research.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Responsibility, identity, and genomic sequencing: A comparison of published recommendations and patient perspectives on accepting or declining incidental findings.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2018Article
- Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2018Article
- A proposed approach to accelerate evidence generation for genomic-based technologies in the context of a learning health system.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Review
- Prior opioid exposure influences parents' sharing of their children's CYP2D6 research results.Pharmacogenomics · 2017Article
- Article
- Family decision maker perspectives on the return of genetic results in biobanking research.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016Article
- A Systematic Review of the Management of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.BEOnline : journal of the West African bioethics training program · 2016Article
- Lay Attitudes Toward Trust, Uncertainty, and the Return of Pediatric Research Results in Biobanking.AJOB empirical bioethics · 2016Article
- Integrative Clinical Sequencing in the Management of Refractory or Relapsed Cancer in Youth.JAMA · 2015Observational
- Opinions, hopes and concerns regarding pharmacogenomics: a comparison of healthy individuals, heart failure patients and heart transplant recipients.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2015Article
- Interest in genomic SNP testing for prostate cancer risk: a pilot survey.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePharmacogenetic testing can inform drug dosing and selection by aiding in estimating a patient's genetic risk of adverse response and/or failure to respond. Some pharmacogenetic tests may generate ancillary clinical information unrelated to the drug treatment question for which testing is done-an informational "side effect." We aimed to assess public interest and concerns about pharmacogenetic tests and ancillary information.
methodsWe conducted a random-digit-dial phone survey of a sample of the US public.
resultsWe achieved an overall response rate of 42% (n = 1139). When the potential for ancillary information was presented, 85% (±2.82%) of respondents expressed interest in pharmacogenetic testing, compared with 82% (±3.02%) before discussion of ancillary information. Most respondents (89% ± 2.27%) indicated that physicians should inform patients that a pharmacogenetic test may reveal ancillary risk information before testing is ordered. Respondents' interest in actually learning of the ancillary risk finding significantly differed based on disease severity, availability of an intervention, and test validity, even after adjusting for age, gender, education, and race.
conclusionUnder the limited information conditions presented in the survey, the potential of ancillary information does not negatively impact public interest in pharmacogenetic testing. Interest in learning ancillary information is well aligned with the public's desire to be informed about potential benefits and risks before testing, promoting patient autonomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.