Literature DB >> 14501835

Informed lay preferences for delivery of racially varied pharmacogenomics.

Jennifer L Bevan1, Jonh A Lynch, Tasha N Dubriwny, Tina M Harris, Paul J Achter, Amy L Reeder, Celeste M Condit.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To understand public perceptions and opinions of three options for prescribing medicine: individualized genetic testing, race-based prescription, and traditional prescription.
METHODS: Focus groups in urban, suburban, and rural communities over-sampled for minority groups conducted from February through April, 2001 in Georgia.
RESULTS: Group members (N = 102) identified individualized genetic testing as providing the best quality of care (60% of talk turns; 75% in postdiscussion anonymous survey), but stipulated the need for protection from the invasion of privacy, discrimination, and prohibitive cost. Most individuals chose genetic testing because it provided individualized attention, and African-Americans indicated they would choose genetic testing even if the costs were high. Overall, individuals were suspicious of race-based prescription. Analyses for degree of suspicion revealed a main effect for race and an interaction effect for race and gender.
CONCLUSIONS: If issues of cost, discrimination, and privacy are addressed, lay individuals prefer genetic testing as the basis for prescription of medicines that exhibit racially patterned response variation.

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14501835     DOI: 10.1097/01.gim.0000087989.12317.3f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  23 in total

1.  Genetic research and health disparities.

Authors:  Pamela Sankar; Mildred K Cho; Celeste M Condit; Linda M Hunt; Barbara Koenig; Patricia Marshall; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Paul Spicer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-06-23       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis and public perceptions of biomedical research: a focus group study.

Authors:  Benjamin R Bates; Tina M Harris
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 1.798

3.  The potential impact of pharmacogenetic testing on medication adherence.

Authors:  S B Haga; N M A LaPointe
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 3.550

4.  Development and validation of tools to assess genetic discrimination and genetically based racism.

Authors:  Roxanne L Parrott; Kami J Silk; Megan R Dillow; Janice L Krieger; Tina M Harris; Celeste M Condit
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.798

Review 5.  Public willingness to participate in and public opinions about genetic variation research: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Rene Sterling; Gail E Henderson; Giselle Corbie-Smith
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-10-03       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Media coverage of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  John Lynch; Ashley Parrott; Robert J Hopkin; Melanie Myers
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Beliefs about Genetically Targeted Care in African Americans.

Authors:  Chanita Hughes Halbert; Jasmine A McDonald; Gayenell Magwood; Melanie Jefferson
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 1.798

8.  Patient experiences with pharmacogenetic testing in a primary care setting.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Rachel Mills; Jivan Moaddeb; Nancy Allen Lapointe; Alex Cho; Geoffrey S Ginsburg
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 2.533

9.  Parental Perception of Self-Empowerment in Pediatric Pharmacogenetic Testing: The Reactions of Parents to the Communication of Actual and Hypothetical CYP2D6 Test Results.

Authors:  Sarah Adelsperger; Cynthia A Prows; Melanie F Myers; Cassandra L Perry; Ariel Chandler; Ingrid A Holm; John A Lynch
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2016-08-30

10.  Views on personalized medicine: do the attitudes of African American and white prescription drug consumers differ?

Authors:  M De Marco; S Cykert; N Coad; K Doost; J Schaal; B White; D Young; M R Isler; G Corbie-Smith
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-09-23       Impact factor: 2.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.