ArticleHuman genomics2025
Strategic insights into pharmacogenomics coverage: a theory-informed SWOT analysis of UAE insurance stakeholders' perspectives.
Article in Human genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and training on genetic testing among public health professionals and students in the United Arab Emirates: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Advanced endometrial cancer in the gulf cooperation council: a modified-Delphi consensus on unmet needs, molecular testing, and treatment sequencing.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Pharmacogenomics in the United Arab Emirates: advances in population genomics and challenges in clinical implementation.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmacogenomic (PGx) testing improves treatment outcomes by tailoring therapy to a patient's genetic profile. However, PGx implementation faces global challenges, including costs, reimbursement, and regulations. Initial PGx guidelines exist in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), but insurers' perspectives remain understudied. This study explores insurers' views on policies and strategies to expand PGx adoption and overcome implementation barriers.
methodsThis qualitative study used a semi-structured interview design to explore the perspectives of twelve executive and middle management insurance representatives selected through purposive convenience and snowball sampling. Thematic analysis was conducted inductively, supported by comparative analysis, the Institutional Theory, the TAM, and SWOT analysis to interpret the findings.
resultsAnalysis revealed variable awareness of PGx, highlighting both perceived benefits and significant barriers. Key findings included economic constraints, limited physician and public awareness, and policy challenges related to cost-effectiveness and infrastructure. Ethical and privacy concerns were minimal but were noted, with potential implications for insurance premiums. Participants stressed the need for collaborative efforts to align PGx with UAE healthcare goals and highlighted the role of advanced health information systems in facilitating integration. Differences emerged between executive and middle-level management: the former emphasised strategic policies and long-term returns on investment, while the latter focused on practical operational barriers.
conclusionsAdvancing PGx in the UAE requires local cost-effectiveness studies, clear government-led coverage guidelines, and collaborative action among insurers, providers, regulators, and academia. These findings may inform health systems with similar public-private insurance arrangements, where phased adoption strategies and education initiatives are key to sustainable 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.