Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39500605›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Scoping review of enablers and challenges of implementing pharmacogenomics testing in the primary care settings.

Chun-Wai Mai, Sathvik B Sridhar, Mohammed Salim Karattuthodi, Perishithaa M Ganesan, Javedh Shareef, E Lyn Lee, Keivan Armani

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Genomics in Health and Biomedicine.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Chun-Wai MaiFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur, Cheras, Malaysia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6532-184X
Sathvik B SridharRAK Medical & Health Sciences University, Ras Al Khaimah, UAE.
Mohammed Salim KarattuthodiManipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences Department of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Perishithaa M GanesanDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, IMU University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Javedh ShareefRAK Medical & Health Sciences University, Ras Al Khaimah, UAE.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5892-5909
E Lyn LeeIMU University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Keivan ArmaniDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London Faculty of Medicine, London, UK k.armani@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5674-2765

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPharmacogenomic testing (PGx) plays a crucial role in improving patient medication safety, yet ethical concerns and limitations impede its clinical implementation in the primary care settings.

aimsTo systematically review the current state of PGx in the primary care settings and determine the enablers and challenges of its implementation.

designA scoping review was carried out by adhering to Arksey and O'Malley's 6-stage methodological framework and the 2020 Joanna Briggs Institute and Levac ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All peer-reviewed studies in English, reporting the enablers and the challenges of implementing PGx in the primary care settings were included. DATE EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Information was synthesised based on the reported enablers and the challenges of implementing PGx testing in the primary care settings. Information was then presented to stakeholders for their inputs.

results78 studies discussing the implementation of PGx testing are included, of which 57% were published between 2019 and 2023. 68% of the studies discussed PGx testing in the primary care setting as a disease-specific themes. Healthcare professionals were the major stakeholders, with primary care physicians (55%) being the most represented. Enablers encompassed various advantages such as diagnostic and therapeutic benefits, cost reduction and the empowerment of healthcare professionals. Challenges included the absence of sufficient scientific evidence, insufficient training for healthcare professionals, ethical and legal aspects of PGx data, low patient awareness and acceptance and the high costs linked to PGx testing.

conclusionPGx testing integration in primary care requires increased consumer awareness, comprehensive healthcare provider training on legal and ethical aspects and global feasibility studies to better understand its implementation challenges. Managing high costs entails streamlining processes, advocating for reimbursement policies and investing in research on innovation and affordability research to improve life expectancy.

Indexed as

Pharmacogenomic TestingPrimary Health CareHumansPharmacogeneticsHealth ServicesHealth WorkforcePrimary Health CareReviewTherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID39500605
PMCPMC11552560

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.