ArticleBMJ open2025
Exploring patient and professional perspectives on implementing pharmacogenomic testing in the UK primary care setting and estimating the cost-effectiveness: a mixed-methods study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementation of preemptive pharmacogenetic testing: progress, puzzles and priorities from an implementation science perspective.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
introductionPharmacogenomic testing could potentially reduce the number of adverse drug reactions and improve treatment outcomes through tailoring treatment to an individual's genetic makeup. Despite its benefits and the ambitions to integrate into routine care, the implementation of pharmacogenomic testing in primary care settings remains limited. This study aims to qualitatively explore the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on implementing pharmacogenomic testing in the UK National Health Service (NHS) primary care setting and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of service-delivery implementation by comparing different HCPs' models of care.
methodThis study consists of three workstreams (WS). WS1 is semi-structured interviews with General Practitioners, pharmacists, nurses and patients (24 participants) to explore implementation issues, including the perceived barriers and facilitators to delivering a pharmacogenomic service. WS2 consists of focus groups (between 24-36 participants) with genomic experts to develop practical pharmacogenomic-guided clinical pathways for primary care. WS3 will estimate the cost-effectiveness of implementing pharmacogenomic testing when led by different HCPs incorporating parameters from the literature, expert opinions, as well as data from WS1 and WS2. ANALYSIS: Thematic analysis will be used to analyse the qualitative data from WS1 and WS2, mapping findings onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains, which will also be used as the theoretical framework. WS3 will be a decision-analytic model developed in Microsoft Excel to compare the cost-effectiveness of pharmacist-led, GP-led, nurse-led or multidisciplinary pathways. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (24/PR/1088). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and engagement with NHS policymakers and Genomics England.
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.