Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34755460›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational science2022

Lay understandings of drug-gene interactions: The right medication, the right dose, at the right time, but what are the right words?

Karen M Meagher, Kelsey Stuttgen Finn, Susan H Curtis, Jack Borucki, Annika T Beck, Amal W Cheema, Richard R Sharp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

7 authors.

Karen M MeagherBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1055-6091
Kelsey Stuttgen FinnBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Susan H CurtisBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6317-1577
Jack BoruckiBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Annika T BeckBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Amal W CheemaBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Richard R SharpBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5441-2084

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing increases in popularity, lay concepts of drug-gene interactions set the stage for shared decision making in precision medicine. Few studies explore what recipients of PGx results think is happening in their bodies when a drug-gene interaction is discovered. To characterize biobank participants' understanding of PGx research results, we conducted a focus group study, which took place after PGx variants conferring increased risk of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency were disclosed to biobank contributors. DPD deficiency confers an increased risk of adverse reaction to commonly used cancer chemotherapeutics. Ten focus groups were conducted, ranging from two to eight participants. Fifty-four individuals participated in focus groups. A framework approach was used for descriptive and explanatory analysis. Descriptive themes included participants' efforts to make sense of PGx findings as they related to: (1) health implications, (2) drugs, and (3) genetics. Explanatory analysis supplied a functional framework of how participant word choices can perform different purposes in PGx communication. Results bear three main implications for PGx research-related disclosure. First, participants' use of various terms suggest participants generally understanding their PGx results, including how positive PGx results differ from positive disease susceptibility genetic results. Second, PGx disclosure in biobanking can involve participant conflation of drug-gene interactions with allergies or other types of medical reactions. Third, the functional framework suggests a need to move beyond a deficit model of genetic literacy in PGx communication. Together, findings provide an initial evidence base for supporting bidirectional expert-recipient PGx results communication.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksPharmacogeneticsCommunicationHumansPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

PMID34755460
PMCPMC8932688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.