Literature DB >> 22047505

Public perspectives about pharmacogenetic testing and managing ancillary findings.

Susanne B Haga1, Genevieve Tindall, Julianne M O'Daniel.   

Abstract

AIMS: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests are intended to improve therapeutic outcomes through predicting a patient's likelihood to respond to or experience an adverse effect from a specific treatment. In addition, PGx testing may also generate ancillary, or incidental, disease information unrelated to the purpose for which the test was ordered. To assess public attitudes toward PGx testing, ancillary disease risk information and related clinical issues, we conducted a series of focus groups.
RESULTS: Forty-five individuals recruited from Durham, NC, participated in four focus groups. Overall, participants were enthusiastic about PGx testing, though expressed concerns about privacy, confidentiality, and psychological harms associated with ancillary information. Focus group participants believed that physicians had a responsibility to disclose ancillary risk information, but were concerned about managing and coping with unexpected disease risk information.
CONCLUSION: We find that participants welcomed the integration of PGx testing into therapeutic decision-making. Public concerns about PGx testing and ancillary information specifically centered on personal implications of learning such additional information, suggesting that patient-provider discussion of the benefits and risks of testing will be necessary until public familiarity with these tests increases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22047505      PMCID: PMC3306589          DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2011.0118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers        ISSN: 1945-0257


  22 in total

1.  Informed lay preferences for delivery of racially varied pharmacogenomics.

Authors:  Jennifer L Bevan; Jonh A Lynch; Tasha N Dubriwny; Tina M Harris; Paul J Achter; Amy L Reeder; Celeste M Condit
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 8.822

2.  Evaluating direct-to-consumer marketing of race-based pharmacogenomics: a focus group study of public understandings of applied genomic medication.

Authors:  Benjamin R Bates; Kristan Poirot; Tina M Harris; Celeste M Condit; Paul J Achter
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec

3.  Knowledge, attitudes, and interest in breast-ovarian cancer gene testing: a survey of a large African-American kindred with a BRCA1 mutation.

Authors:  A Y Kinney; R T Croyle; W N Dudley; C A Bailey; M K Pelias; S L Neuhausen
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong; Ellyn Micco; Amy Carney; Jill Stopfer; Mary Putt
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-04-13       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  A lay prescription for tailor-made drugs--focus group reflections on pharmacogenomics.

Authors:  Anna Birna Almarsdóttir; Ingunn Björnsdóttir; Janine Morgall Traulsen
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 6.  Pharmacogenetics and the practice of medicine.

Authors:  A D Roses
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-06-15       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Pharmacogenetic testing, informed consent and the problem of secondary information.

Authors:  Christian Netzer; Nikola Biller-Andorno
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 1.898

8.  Attitudinal barriers to delivery of race-targeted pharmacogenomics among informed lay persons.

Authors:  Celeste Condit; Alan Templeton; Benjamin R Bates; Jennifer L Bevan; Tina M Harris
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing.

Authors:  S B Haga; J M O'Daniel; G M Tindall; I R Lipkus; R Agans
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 3.550

10.  Attitudes of African American premedical students toward genetic testing and screening.

Authors:  Sara L Laskey; Joseph Williams; Jacqui Pierre-Louis; MaryAnn O'Riordan; Anne Matthews; Nathaniel H Robin
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  29 in total

1.  Assessment of patient perceptions of genomic testing to inform pharmacogenomic implementation.

Authors:  Yee Ming Lee; Ryan P McKillip; Brittany A Borden; Catherine E Klammer; Mark J Ratain; Peter H O'Donnell
Journal:  Pharmacogenet Genomics       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Julia Crouch; Seema M Jamal; Michael J Bamshad; Holly K Tabor
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Patient Perceptions of Care as Influenced by a Large Institutional Pharmacogenomic Implementation Program.

Authors:  R P McKillip; B A Borden; P Galecki; S A Ham; L Patrick-Miller; J P Hall; S Hussain; K Danahey; M Siegler; M J Sorrentino; Y Sacro; A M Davis; D T Rubin; K Lipstreuer; T S Polonsky; R Nanda; W R Harper; J L Koyner; D L Burnet; W M Stadler; M J Ratain; D O Meltzer; P H O'Donnell
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Genetic counselors' (GC) knowledge, awareness, understanding of clinical next-generation sequencing (NGS) genomic testing.

Authors:  P M Boland; K Ruth; J M Matro; K L Rainey; C Y Fang; Y N Wong; M B Daly; M J Hall
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 4.438

7.  Patient characteristics, experiences and perceived value of pharmacogenetic testing from a single testing laboratory.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Yiling Liu
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 2.533

8.  Attitudes of African Americans toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Julia Crouch; Seema M Jamal; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.802

9.  A Clinical Service to Support the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings in Human Research.

Authors:  Andrew J Darnell; Howard Austin; David A Bluemke; Richard O Cannon; Kenneth Fischbeck; William Gahl; David Goldman; Christine Grady; Mark H Greene; Steven M Holland; Sara Chandros Hull; Forbes D Porter; David Resnik; Wendy S Rubinstein; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  A stepwise approach to implementing pharmacogenetic testing in the primary care setting.

Authors:  Kristin Wiisanen Weitzel; Benjamin Q Duong; Meghan J Arwood; Aniwaa Owusu-Obeng; Noura S Abul-Husn; Barbara A Bernhardt; Brian Decker; Joshua C Denny; Eric Dietrich; John Gums; Ebony B Madden; Toni I Pollin; Rebekah Ryanne Wu; Susanne B Haga; Carol R Horowitz
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.533

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.