ArticleClinical and translational science2025
Informing Implementation Strategies for Pharmacogenomics in Cancer: Development of Survey Tools for Healthcare Professionals and Consumers.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of preemptive pharmacogenetic testing: progress, puzzles and priorities from an implementation science perspective.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Pharmacogenomics in pediatric oncology: Australian adolescent or young adult and caregiver perspectives.Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integration of clinical pharmacogenomics (PGx) within routine cancer care is limited despite frequent use of medicines impacted by PGx, evidence for the benefits of PGx, and the availability of international PGx clinical guidelines. Our study objective was to develop survey tools to assess PGx knowledge, attitudes, practices, perceptions, and education needs among (a) doctors, nurses, and pharmacists involved in cancer care (healthcare professionals, HCPs) and (b) adults who have received cancer treatment or their carers (consumers), with the view to informing implementation strategies for PGx in solid and hematologic cancers. Survey tools were developed in a three-phase (ph) mixed-methods approach. Content was informed by systematic literature review findings and framed by determinants of behavior as informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (ph-1). Refinement occurred through four separate priority partnership meetings (ph-2). Meetings focused on clinical PGx practices within select cancer streams, and consumers' knowledge, attitudes, and preferences for PGx testing. Content/face validity and health literacy (Flesch Kincaid Grade Level) assessments informed final refinements (ph-3). Separate HCP and consumer survey tools were developed with six common sections: (1) introduction; (2) demographics; (3) experience; (4) knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceptions; (5) education; and (6) vignettes. Content and face validity were rated highly with acceptable health literacy assessments for questions within the consumer survey (median grade level 6; range 1-8). The developed survey tools will be used to generate evidence to inform local implementation strategies for PGx in cancer and promote broader integration of pharmacogenomics in routine clinical care.
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.