Susanne B Haga1, Rachel Mills2, Hayden Bosworth3. 1. Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy and Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, USA. Electronic address: susanne.haga@duke.edu. 2. Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy, Duke University, Durham, USA. 3. Departments of Medicine, Psychiatry, and Nursing, Duke University, Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham VAMC, Durham, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing can provide information about a patient's likelihood to respond to a medication or experience an adverse event, and be used to inform medication selection and/or dosing. Promoting patient comprehension of PGx test results will be important to improving engagement and understanding of treatment decisions. METHODS: The discussion in this paper is based on our experiences and the literature on communication of genetic test results for disease risk and broad risk communication strategies. RESULTS: Clinical laboratory reports often describe PGx test results using standard terminology such as 'poor metabolizer' or 'ultra-rapid metabolizer.' While this type of terminology may promote patient recall with its simple, yet descriptive nature, it may be difficult for some patients to comprehend and/or cause adverse psychological or behavioral responses. CONCLUSION: The language used to communicate results and their significance to patients will be important to consider in order to minimize confusion and potential psychological consequences such as increased anxiety that can adversely impact medication-taking behaviors. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Due to patients' unfamiliarity with PGx testing and the potential for confusion, adverse psychological effects, and decreased medication adherence, health providers need to be cognizant of the language used in discussing PGx test results with patients.
OBJECTIVE: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing can provide information about a patient's likelihood to respond to a medication or experience an adverse event, and be used to inform medication selection and/or dosing. Promoting patient comprehension of PGx test results will be important to improving engagement and understanding of treatment decisions. METHODS: The discussion in this paper is based on our experiences and the literature on communication of genetic test results for disease risk and broad risk communication strategies. RESULTS: Clinical laboratory reports often describe PGx test results using standard terminology such as 'poor metabolizer' or 'ultra-rapid metabolizer.' While this type of terminology may promote patient recall with its simple, yet descriptive nature, it may be difficult for some patients to comprehend and/or cause adverse psychological or behavioral responses. CONCLUSION: The language used to communicate results and their significance to patients will be important to consider in order to minimize confusion and potential psychological consequences such as increased anxiety that can adversely impact medication-taking behaviors. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Due to patients' unfamiliarity with PGx testing and the potential for confusion, adverse psychological effects, and decreased medication adherence, health providers need to be cognizant of the language used in discussing PGx test results with patients.
Authors: Joanna Picot; Jackie Bryant; Keith Cooper; Andy Clegg; Paul Roderick; William Rosenberg; Christine Patch Journal: Genet Test Mol Biomarkers Date: 2009-02
Authors: Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride; Christopher Wade; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert Reid; Eric Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 8.822
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
Authors: Cynthia M Khan; Christine Rini; Barbara A Bernhardt; J Scott Roberts; Kurt D Christensen; James P Evans; Kyle B Brothers; Myra I Roche; Jonathan S Berg; Gail E Henderson Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 2.537
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
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
Authors: Priscilla A Chan; Katie L Lewis; Barbara B Biesecker; Lori H Erby; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Sandra Epps; Leslie G Biesecker; Erin Turbitt Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 2.717