Literature DB >> 24985359

Striking a balance in communicating pharmacogenetic test results: promoting comprehension and minimizing adverse psychological and behavioral response.

Susanne B Haga1, Rachel Mills2, Hayden Bosworth3.   

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.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Communication of results; Genetic testing; Patient education

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24985359      PMCID: PMC4162835          DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.06.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  67 in total

Review 1.  Ethical and legal implications of pharmacogenomics.

Authors:  M A Rothstein; P G Epps
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  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

Review 3.  Antidepressant pharmacogenetics.

Authors:  Ajeet B Singh; Chad A Bousman; Chee Ng; Michael Berk
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychiatry       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.741

4.  Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions.

Authors:  Ellen Peters; Nathan F Dieckmann; Daniel Västfjäll; C K Mertz; Paul Slovic; Judith H Hibbard
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2009-09

Review 5.  Personalized oncology: recent advances and future challenges.

Authors:  Madhu Kalia
Journal:  Metabolism       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 8.694

Review 6.  Clinical impact and drivers of non-adherence to maintenance medication for inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  Christian P Selinger; Andrew Robinson; Rupert W Leong
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Saf       Date:  2011-05-09       Impact factor: 4.250

7.  Primary care physicians' knowledge of and experience with pharmacogenetic testing.

Authors:  S B Haga; W Burke; G S Ginsburg; R Mills; R Agans
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 4.438

8.  Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy.

Authors:  Carmen Keller; Michael Siegrist
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 9.  Psychosocial aspects of DNA testing for hereditary hemochromatosis in at-risk individuals: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joanna Picot; Jackie Bryant; Keith Cooper; Andy Clegg; Paul Roderick; William Rosenberg; Christine Patch
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2009-02

10.  Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results.

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

View more
  9 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.  Using a Genomics Taxonomy: Facilitating Patient Care Safety and Quality in the Era of Precision Oncology.

Authors:  Patricia Friend; Erin Dickman; Kathleen Calzone
Journal:  Clin J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 1.027

Review 3.  Ethical perspectives on translational pharmacogenetic research involving children.

Authors:  Parvaz Madadi
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.022

4.  How can psychological science inform research about genetic counseling for clinical genomic sequencing?

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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Preferences for and acceptability of receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail: A focus group study with a primarily African-American cohort.

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

8.  Knowledge and Attitudes About Genetic Testing Among Black and White Women with Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Maura K McCall; Sikemi Ibikunle; Yolanda Murphy; Kenneth Hunter; Margaret Q Rosenzweig
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2020-10-06

9.  An assessment of patient perspectives on pharmacogenomics educational materials.

Authors:  Gladys B Asiedu; Lila J Finney Rutten; Amenah Agunwamba; Suzette J Bielinski; Jennifer L St Sauver; Janet E Olson; Carolyn R Rohrer Vitek
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.638

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.