ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Development and Validation of the Minnesota Assessment of Pharmacogenomic Literacy (MAPL).
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinician Satisfaction With Pharmacogenomics Clinical Services at a Multistate Health System.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Addressing genetic diversity and health inequities: RELIVAF's proposal for Latin American pharmacogenomic guidelines.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Public awareness, attitudes, and concerns regarding pharmacogenomics in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: an exploratory online cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Patient Awareness and Acceptance of Pharmacogenomics Services: A Survey of Attitudes Toward PGx Implementation and Pharmacist-Led Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Assessing the Impact of Simplified Language on a Patient-Facing Pharmacogenetic Report: A User Comprehension Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Advancing pharmacogenomic research in US Hmong populations: prevalence of key single nucleotide variations in California Hmong.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Assessing pharmacogenomic literacy in China through validation of the Chinese version of the Minnesota Assessment of Pharmacogenomic Literacy.Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Patient understanding of pharmacogenomic test results in clinical care.Patient education and counseling · 2023Article
- Intersection and Considerations for Patient-Centered Care, Patient Experience, and Medication Experience in Pharmacogenomics.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Public Attitudes toward Pharmacogenomic Testing and Establishing a Statewide Pharmacogenomics Database in the State of Minnesota.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ensuring that patients have an adequate understanding of pharmacogenomic (PGx) test results is a critical component of implementing precision medicine into clinical care. However, no PGx-specific validated literacy assessment has yet been developed. To address this need, we developed and validated the Minnesota Assessment of Pharmacogenomic Literacy (MAPLTM). Foundational work included a scoping review of patient and general public attitudes and experiences with pharmacogenomic testing, three focus groups, readability assessments, and review by experts and members of the general public. This resulted in a 15-item assessment designed to assess knowledge in four domains: underlying concepts, limitations, benefits, and privacy. For validation, 646 participants completed the MAPL as a part of a larger survey about pharmacogenomic research and statewide PGx implementation. Two items were deemed to be “too easy” and dropped. The remaining 13 items were retained in the final MAPL with good internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75). Confirmatory factor analysis validated the four-domain construct of MAPL and suggested good model performance and high internal validity. The estimated coefficient loadings across 13 questions on the corresponding domains are all positive and statistically significant (p < 0.05). The MAPL covers multiple knowledge domains of specific relevance to PGx and is a useful tool for clinical and research settings where quantitative assessment of PGx literacy is of value.
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.