Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33959200›Full record

ArticleAsian bioethics review2021

Perceptions of 'Precision' and 'Personalised' Medicine in Singapore and Associated Ethical Issues.

Serene Ong, Jeffrey Ling, Angela Ballantyne, Tamra Lysaght, Vicki Xafis

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian bioethics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Exploring interdisciplinary perspectives on the implementation ofJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Serene OngCentre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-3753-7990
Jeffrey LingFaculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Angela BallantyneCentre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Tamra LysaghtCentre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Vicki XafisCentre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
National University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Governments are investing in precision medicine (PM) with the aim of improving healthcare through the use of genomic analyses and data analytics to develop tailored treatment approaches for individual patients. The success of PM is contingent upon clear public communications that engender trust and secure the social licence to collect and share large population-wide data sets because specific consent for each data re-use is impractical. Variation in the terminology used by different programmes used to describe PM may hinder clear communication and threaten trust. Language is used to create common understanding and expectations regarding precision medicine between researchers, clinicians and the volunteers. There is a need to better understand public interpretations of PM-related terminology. This paper reports on a qualitative study involving 24 focus group participants in the multi-lingual context of Singapore. The study explored how Singaporeans interpret and understand the terms 'precision medicine' and 'personalised medicine', and which term they felt more aptly communicates the concept and goals of PM. Results suggest that participants were unable to readily link the terms with this area of medicine and initially displayed preferences for the more familiar term of 'personalised'. The use of visual aids to convey key concepts resonated with participants, some of whom then indicated preferences for the term 'precision' as being a more accurate description of PM research. These aids helped to facilitate dialogue around the ethical and social value, as well as the risks, of PM. Implications for programme developers and policy makers are discussed.

Indexed as

Big dataData sharingPersonalised medicinePrecision healthPrecision medicineSocial licence

Identifiers

PMID33959200
PMCPMC8079483
OpenAlexW3138284779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.