BACKGROUND/AIMS: Patient concerns regarding personalized medicine may limit its use. This study assesses racial differences in attitudes toward personalized medicine, evaluating variables that may influence these attitudes. METHODS: A convenience sample of 190 adults (≥18 years) from an academic primary care practice was surveyed regarding awareness and acceptance of personalized medicine, plus concerns and benefits regarding its use. Logistic regressions predicting awareness, acceptance and concerns were performed, controlling for race, gender, marital status, education, children, internet use, and self-reported discrimination. RESULTS: The sample was 35% non-Hispanic white (NHW) and 34.7% male. More NHW participants expressed acceptance of personalized medicine than non-Hispanic black (NHB) participants (94.4 vs. 81.9%, p = 0.0190). More NHBs were concerned about the use of genes without consent (57.3 vs. 20.6%, p < 0.0001), sharing genetic information without consent (65.0 vs. 35.6%, p < 0.0001), discrimination based on genes (62.4 vs. 34.3%, p = 0.0002), and lack of access due to cost (75.0 vs. 48.0%, p = 0.0002). In logistic regressions, NHBs (OR = 7.46, 95% CI = 3.04-18.32) and those self-reporting discrimination (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.22-6.78) had more concerns about the misuse of genes and costs associated with personalized medicine. CONCLUSION: Racial differences exist in attitudes toward personalized medicine and may be influenced by self-reported discrimination. Further study to understand factors influencing the acceptance of personalized medicine could help encourage its use.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Patient concerns regarding personalized medicine may limit its use. This study assesses racial differences in attitudes toward personalized medicine, evaluating variables that may influence these attitudes. METHODS: A convenience sample of 190 adults (≥18 years) from an academic primary care practice was surveyed regarding awareness and acceptance of personalized medicine, plus concerns and benefits regarding its use. Logistic regressions predicting awareness, acceptance and concerns were performed, controlling for race, gender, marital status, education, children, internet use, and self-reported discrimination. RESULTS: The sample was 35% non-Hispanic white (NHW) and 34.7% male. More NHW participants expressed acceptance of personalized medicine than non-Hispanic black (NHB) participants (94.4 vs. 81.9%, p = 0.0190). More NHBs were concerned about the use of genes without consent (57.3 vs. 20.6%, p < 0.0001), sharing genetic information without consent (65.0 vs. 35.6%, p < 0.0001), discrimination based on genes (62.4 vs. 34.3%, p = 0.0002), and lack of access due to cost (75.0 vs. 48.0%, p = 0.0002). In logistic regressions, NHBs (OR = 7.46, 95% CI = 3.04-18.32) and those self-reporting discrimination (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.22-6.78) had more concerns about the misuse of genes and costs associated with personalized medicine. CONCLUSION: Racial differences exist in attitudes toward personalized medicine and may be influenced by self-reported discrimination. Further study to understand factors influencing the acceptance of personalized medicine could help encourage its use.
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
Authors: Nicole M Kuderer; Kimberly A Burton; Sibel Blau; Francis Senecal; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Stephanie Parker; Elisabeth Mahen; David Veenstra; Josh J Carlson; Gary H Lyman; C Anthony Blau Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2017-08-16
Authors: Kelsey Moriarty; Susan M Wolf; Patricia M Veach; Bonnie LeRoy; Ian M MacFarlane; Heather A Zierhut Journal: Per Med Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Michael J Hall; Karen J Ruth; David Yt Chen; Laura M Gross; Veda N Giri Journal: Hered Cancer Clin Pract Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 2.857
Authors: Juan R Canedo; Consuelo H Wilkins; Nicole Senft; Araceli Romero; Kemberlee Bonnet; David Schlundt Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rohini Chakravarthy; Sarah C Stallings; Michael Williams; Megan Hollister; Mario Davidson; Juan Canedo; Consuelo H Wilkins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 3.752