ReviewFuture healthcare journal2021
Patient and public understanding of the concept of 'personalised medicine' in relation to cancer treatment: a systematic review.
Review in Future healthcare journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing barriers to genomic testing in breast cancer among diverse patients: a qualitative community-engaged research study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Precision Medicine for Cancer and Health Equity in Latin America: Generating Understanding for Policy and Health System Shaping.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Bridging the gap: understanding the perspective of healthcare professional students towards precision medicine in a Nigerian tertiary institution (a cross-sectional study).BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Exploring Literacy and Knowledge Gaps and Disparities in Genetics and Oncogenomics Among Cancer Patients and the General Population: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Perceptions of Nigerian medical students regarding their preparedness for precision medicine: a cross-sectional survey in Lagos, Nigeria.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Primary Care Patient Interest in Multi-Cancer Early Detection for Cancer Screening.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Personalised Medicine across Europe.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- 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
- Patient Perceptions and Potential Utility of Pharmacogenetic Testing in Chronic Pain Management and Opioid Use Disorder in the Camden Opioid Research Initiative.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personalised medicine (PM) is becoming increasingly integrated into standard clinical practice for treating numerous diseases, including cancer. Implementing PM into healthcare systems will only be successful with the acceptance and input of both patients' and public opinion. This review, therefore, aimed to identify both patients' and public understanding, and perceived benefits and concerns of PM in cancer treatment. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases. The eligibility criteria specified that papers must explore the public or patients' understanding of PM or pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing in relation to cancer treatment. Patients have a greater understanding of, and trust in, PM compared with members of the public, but often misunderstand how genomic testing in PM works. Key areas that can be targeted to inform future health literacy interventions include genetic literacy for the public and understanding of how PM testing and treatment works for patients.
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.