ArticleBMC medicine2026
Survey to inform personalised prescribing in a British South Asian community: pharmacogenomics and traditional medicine use.
Article in BMC medicine, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPharmacogenomics (PGx) uses genetic information to personalize medication, reducing adverse reactions and improving efficacy. Despite its promise, low public awareness and disparities in PGx acceptability among under-represented groups may exacerbate health inequalities. The objective of this study was to elucidate a British South Asian community's attitudes toward personalised prescribing.
methodsAdults of Bangladeshi or Pakistani ancestry from the Genes & Health (G&H) study completed a survey. Community feedback guided theme prioritization. Multivariable logistic regression analyses (controlling for age and gender) explored relationships among survey variables, and case-control Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) and candidate variant enrichment analysis examined the genetic architecture underlying herbal remedy use.
resultsOut of 553 respondents (57% female, mostly aged 25-54), 72% reported medication inefficacy, and 54% experienced side effects. Herbal remedies were widely used (66%), notably Black seed (39%), Turmeric (37%), and Ginger (36%). Participants who reported not using traditional or herbal medicines had higher medication adherence MARS-5 scores (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.10, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.05-1.16, p < 0.0002). All three commonly used herbal remedies inhibit the pharmacogenomically variable CYP2C9 enzyme responsible for metabolising commonly used medications. 58% of respondents were willing to provide DNA samples for PGx testing, yet 70% agreed that they would be more likely to take medication as instructed if PGx results suggested the medicine would suit them. Concerns about PGx testing were common (27%), especially among non-English speakers. Most (69%) were concerned about misuse of PGx data, particularly by pharmaceutical companies (82%). Importantly, 87% demanded stronger PGx data protections compared to other health data.
conclusionsCompared to a national UK population, the surveyed subpopulation reported higher rates of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and perceived medication inefficacy, yet fewer respondents indicated willingness to undergo PGx testing. This highlights the need for tailored implementation strategies and underscores the importance of engaging underrepresented populations in policy development. The inverse relationship between medication adherence and herbal remedy use indicates an association between cultural health practices and medication behaviours that merits further investigation. Increased awareness of the common use of these CYP2C9 inhibitors and further research into the genetic architecture underlying herbal remedy use are warranted.
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.