Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35191159›Full record

ArticleInternal medicine journal2022

Pharmacogenomic testing: perception of clinical utility, enablers and barriers to adoption in Australian hospitals.

Angela Pearce, Bronwyn Terrill, Jan-Willem Alffenaar, Asad E Patanwala, Sarah Kummerfeld, Richard Day, Mary-Anne Young, Sophie L Stocker

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Internal medicine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors.

Angela PearceKinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5258-5421
Bronwyn TerrillKinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0263-363X
Jan-Willem AlffenaarFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Pharmacy School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0001-6703-0288
Asad E PatanwalaFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Pharmacy School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0003-3999-4703
Sarah KummerfeldKinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0089-2358
Richard DaySt Vincent's Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0002-6045-6937
Mary-Anne YoungKinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2493-6394
Sophie L StockerSt Vincent's Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID 0000-0002-2114-587X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite healthcare professionals (HCP) endorsing the clinical utility of pharmacogenomics testing, use in clinical practice is limited.

aimsTo assess HCP' perceptions of pharmacogenomic testing and identify barriers to implementation.

methodsHCP involved in prescribing decisions at three hospitals in Sydney, Australia, were invited to participate. The online survey assessed perceptions of pharmacogenomic testing, including: (i) demographic and practice variables; (ii) use, knowledge and confidence; (iii) perceived benefits; (iv) barriers to implementation; and (v) operational and/or system changes and personnel required to implement on site.

resultsHCP were predominantly medical practitioners (75/107) and pharmacists (25/107). HCP perceived pharmacogenomic testing was beneficial to identify reasons for drug intolerance (85/95) and risk of side-effects (86/95). Although testing was considered relevant to their practice (79/100), few HCP (23/100) reported past or intended future use (26/100). Few HCP reported confidence in their ability to identify indications for pharmacogenomic testing (14/107), order tests (19/106) and communicate results with patients (16/107). Lack of clinical practice guidelines (62/79) and knowledge (54/77) were identified as major barriers to implementation of pharmacogenomics. Comprehensive reimbursement for testing and clinical practice guidelines, alongside models-of-care involving multidisciplinary teams and local clinical champions were suggested as strategies to facilitate implementation of pharmacogenomic testing into practice.

conclusionsPharmacogenomic testing was considered important to guide drug selection and dosing decisions. However, limited knowledge, low confidence and an absence of guidelines impede the use of pharmacogenomic testing. Establishment of local resources including multidisciplinary models-of-care was suggested to facilitate implementation of pharmacogenomics.

Indexed as

PharmacogeneticsPharmacogenomic TestingAustraliaHospitalsHumansPerceptionAustraliainterdisciplinary studypharmacogenomic testingsurvey and questionnairetertiary care setting

Identifiers

PMID35191159
PMCPMC9541847

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.