ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2024
Exploring the preparedness of hospital pharmacists practising in Southwest London for implementing pharmacogenomics testing.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Pharmacogenomics (PG), the study of how genetic variations impact individual responses to drugs, has seen significant advancements globally in recent years. Hospital pharmacists play a crucial role in multi-disciplinary teams and understanding their preparedness to deliver PG services is essential for successful integration into the healthcare systems. This study evaluates their knowledge, training and seeks their views on PG testing implementation. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on hospital pharmacists practising in Southwest London with the sample size determined as 137. The study was ethically approved. A structured, self-administered questionnaire was initially piloted, then distributed using emails with a link to Microsoft Form over a three-month period. It comprised 31 questions covering training levels, confidence, knowledge, perceptions, barriers to implementation and demographics. Results: A total of 46 responses were received achieving a response rate of 33.6%. The study revealed that 65% of participants had limited familiarity or understanding of PG. Over 50% indicated not receiving previous undergraduate or postgraduate training relevant to PG and accordingly their responses to the PG knowledge questions were lacking. Pharmacists with postgraduate training demonstrated better awareness and knowledge. An overwhelming number of participants envisaged carving a role for themselves favouring those that would complement their expertise in medicine management such as recommending appropriate treatment and dosages and suggestions based on PG testing results. Barriers identified were mostly concerning financial cost and shortage of trained staff to support PG services. Conclusions: Most surveyed pharmacists were not prepared to deliver PG services and thus require tailored training; nonetheless, they exhibited a positive attitude towards PG suggesting a willingness to bridge learning gaps. This presents an opportunity for relevant organisations to provide necessary training and for universities to enhance the curriculum enabling pharmacists to be involved in PG implementation.
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.