Literature DB >> 21633294

Public attitudes toward ancillary information revealed by pharmacogenetic testing under limited information conditions.

Susanne B Haga1, Julianne M O'Daniel, Genevieve M Tindall, Isaac R Lipkus, Robert Agans.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Pharmacogenetic testing can inform drug dosing and selection by aiding in estimating a patient's genetic risk of adverse response and/or failure to respond. Some pharmacogenetic tests may generate ancillary clinical information unrelated to the drug treatment question for which testing is done-an informational "side effect." We aimed to assess public interest and concerns about pharmacogenetic tests and ancillary information.
METHODS: We conducted a random-digit-dial phone survey of a sample of the US public.
RESULTS: We achieved an overall response rate of 42% (n = 1139). When the potential for ancillary information was presented, 85% (±2.82%) of respondents expressed interest in pharmacogenetic testing, compared with 82% (±3.02%) before discussion of ancillary information. Most respondents (89% ± 2.27%) indicated that physicians should inform patients that a pharmacogenetic test may reveal ancillary risk information before testing is ordered. Respondents' interest in actually learning of the ancillary risk finding significantly differed based on disease severity, availability of an intervention, and test validity, even after adjusting for age, gender, education, and race.
CONCLUSION: Under the limited information conditions presented in the survey, the potential of ancillary information does not negatively impact public interest in pharmacogenetic testing. Interest in learning ancillary information is well aligned with the public's desire to be informed about potential benefits and risks before testing, promoting patient autonomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21633294      PMCID: PMC3150617          DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821afcc0

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


  45 in total

1.  Incidentalomas--clinical correlation and translational science required.

Authors:  John H Stone
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-06-29       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane; Daniel R Masys; Russ B Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-07-12       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Health-related quality of life surveillance--United States, 1993-2002.

Authors:  Hatice S Zahran; Rosemarie Kobau; David G Moriarty; Matthew M Zack; James Holt; Ralph Donehoo
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2005-10-28

4.  Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and the risk of Alzheimer's disease in late onset families.

Authors:  E H Corder; A M Saunders; W J Strittmatter; D E Schmechel; P C Gaskell; G W Small; A D Roses; J L Haines; M A Pericak-Vance
Journal:  Science       Date:  1993-08-13       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  The illness perceptions of women following acute myocardial infarction: implications for behaviour change and attendance at cardiac rehabilitation.

Authors:  J D MacInnes
Journal:  Women Health       Date:  2005

6.  Self-rated fair or poor health among adults with diabetes--United States, 1996-2005.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2006-11-17       Impact factor: 17.586

7.  Primary care physicians' willingness to offer a new genetic test to tailor smoking treatment, according to test characteristics.

Authors:  Alexandra E Shields; Douglas E Levy; David Blumenthal; Douglas Currivan; Mary McGinn-Shapiro; Kevin B Weiss; Recai Yucel; Caryn Lerman
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.244

8.  Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics.

Authors:  Mildred K Cho
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

9.  Pharmacogenetic testing: not as simple as it seems.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments.

Authors:  Cinnamon S Bloss; Laura Ornowski; Elana Silver; Michele Cargill; Vance Vanier; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  23 in total

Review 1.  Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review.

Authors:  Z Lohn; S Adam; P H Birch; J M Friedman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-26       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Three clinical experiences with SNP array results consistent with parental incest: a narrative with lessons learned.

Authors:  Benjamin M Helm; Katherine Langley; Brooke Spangler; Samantha Vergano
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) in Clinical Genetics Research.

Authors:  Daryl Pullman; Holly Etchegary
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

4.  Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: a survey study.

Authors:  A A Lemke; D Bick; D Dimmock; P Simpson; R Veith
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 4.438

5.  Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences.

Authors:  Michelle L McGowan; Cynthia A Prows; Melissa DeJonckheere; William B Brinkman; Lisa Vaughn; Melanie F Myers
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  Public perspectives about pharmacogenetic testing and managing ancillary findings.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Genevieve Tindall; Julianne M O'Daniel
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2011-11-02

7.  Opinions, hopes and concerns regarding pharmacogenomics: a comparison of healthy individuals, heart failure patients and heart transplant recipients.

Authors:  K Lachance; S Korol; E O'Meara; A Ducharme; N Racine; M Liszkowski; J L Rouleau; G B Pelletier; M Carrier; M White; S de Denus
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 3.550

8.  Clinical delivery of pharmacogenetic testing services: a proposed partnership between genetic counselors and pharmacists.

Authors:  Rachel Mills; Susanne B Haga
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.533

9.  Prior opioid exposure influences parents' sharing of their children's CYP2D6 research results.

Authors:  Melanie F Myers; Xue Zhang; Brooke McLaughlin; Diane Kissell; Cassandra L Perry; Matthew Veerkamp; Kejian Zhang; Ingrid A Holm; Cynthia A Prows
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 2.533

10.  Attitudes of patients with cancer about personalized medicine and somatic genetic testing.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Katherine Hicks-Courant; Christopher S Lathan; Levi Garraway; Elyse R Park; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 3.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.