ArticlePharmacogenomics
Patient perspectives of a multidisciplinary Pharmacogenomics clinic.
Article in Pharmacogenomics. 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.
- Clinician Satisfaction With Pharmacogenomics Clinical Services at a Multistate Health System.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Cancer patients' perspectives and practices regarding pharmacogenomic testing and its cost.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess patient perspectives following evaluation in a multidisciplinary pharmacogenomics clinic run by a clinical pharmacist, genetic counselor, and physician.
methodsA survey was distributed to 187 adults seen in the Brigham and Women's Hospital Pharmacogenomics Clinic. Participants who completed the survey were invited to complete a semi-structured interview. Interview subjects were selected based on order of responses, scheduling availability, and range of participant experiences with testing and the clinic process. Surveys were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and interview transcripts were analyzed with thematic analysis.
resultsForty-two survey responses were received; 13 participants were interviewed. Quantitative data demonstrated high satisfaction with the multidisciplinary clinic model and belief that pharmacogenomic testing has value. Qualitative analysis identified four themes: 1) Self-Advocacy as a Patient Responsibility in the Utilization of Pharmacogenomic Results, 2) High Satisfaction with Multidisciplinary Pharmacogenomics Clinic Model and Team, 3) Utility of Pharmacogenomics, and 4) Desire for Pharmacogenomics Resources.
conclusionPatients value the care provided by a multidisciplinary pharmacogenomics clinic team, but they need to advocate for the use of their results with other healthcare professionals.
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.