ArticleGenetic testing and molecular biomarkers2012
Public perspectives about pharmacogenetic testing and managing ancillary findings.
Article in Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of pharmacogenetic testing in swiss community pharmacies: a mixed-methods study among physicians, pharmacists, and the general public.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Ethical Considerations in Carbamazepine Pharmacogenomics Testing.Innovations in pharmacy · 2025Article
- Article
- Pharmacogenomic knowledge and awareness among diverse patients treated with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors.Pharmacogenomics · 2023Article
- Patient understanding of pharmacogenomic test results in clinical care.Patient education and counseling · 2023Article
- Public perceptions of pharmacogenomic services in Ireland - Are people with chronic disease more likely to want service availability than those without? A questionnaire study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- Readiness to Accept Genetic Testing for Personalized Medicine: Survey Findings on the Role of Socio-Demographic Characteristics, Health Vulnerabilities, Perceived Genetic Risk and Personality Factors.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Precision medicine from a citizen perspective: a survey of public attitudes towards pharmacogenomics in Flanders.BMC medical genomics · 2022Article
- Lay understandings of drug-gene interactions: The right medication, the right dose, at the right time, but what are the right words?Clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Attitudes toward pharmacogenetics in patients undergoingPersonalized medicine · 2022Article
- Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings.BMC medical genomics · 2021Article
- Rural Community Perceptions and Interests in Pharmacogenomics.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- A stepwise approach to implementing pharmacogenetic testing in the primary care setting.Pharmacogenomics · 2019Article
- Patient characteristics, experiences and perceived value of pharmacogenetic testing from a single testing laboratory.Pharmacogenomics · 2019Article
- Developing Pharmacogenomic Reports: Insights from Patients and Clinicians.Clinical and translational science · 2018Article
- Patient Perceptions of Care as Influenced by a Large Institutional Pharmacogenomic Implementation Program.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2017Article
- Assessment of patient perceptions of genomic testing to inform pharmacogenomic implementation.Pharmacogenetics and genomics · 2017Article
- Is "incidental finding" the best term?: a study of patients' preferences.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Article
- Article
- Patient experiences with pharmacogenetic testing in a primary care setting.Pharmacogenomics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsPharmacogenetic (PGx) tests are intended to improve therapeutic outcomes through predicting a patient's likelihood to respond to or experience an adverse effect from a specific treatment. In addition, PGx testing may also generate ancillary, or incidental, disease information unrelated to the purpose for which the test was ordered. To assess public attitudes toward PGx testing, ancillary disease risk information and related clinical issues, we conducted a series of focus groups.
resultsForty-five individuals recruited from Durham, NC, participated in four focus groups. Overall, participants were enthusiastic about PGx testing, though expressed concerns about privacy, confidentiality, and psychological harms associated with ancillary information. Focus group participants believed that physicians had a responsibility to disclose ancillary risk information, but were concerned about managing and coping with unexpected disease risk information.
conclusionWe find that participants welcomed the integration of PGx testing into therapeutic decision-making. Public concerns about PGx testing and ancillary information specifically centered on personal implications of learning such additional information, suggesting that patient-provider discussion of the benefits and risks of testing will be necessary until public familiarity with these tests increases.
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.