Literature DB >> 33445171

Impact of Previous Genetic Counseling and Objective Numeracy on Accurate Interpretation of a Pharmacogenetics Test Report.

Kelly Drelles1, Robert Pilarski1, Kandamurugu Manickam2,3, Abigail B Shoben4, Amanda Ewart Toland5,6.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing can be useful for providing information about a patient's drug response by increasing drug efficacy and decreasing the incidence of adverse drug events. While PGx tests were previously only offered to patients under healthcare provider supervision, they are now available as direct to consumer (DTC) tests. This study aimed to assess how accurately individuals from the general population were able to interpret a sample PGx test report and if accuracy differed based on individuals' numeracy or prior genetic counseling (GC).
METHODS: We surveyed 293 individuals from the general population, ascertained through ResearchMatch. The survey included questions about PGx test interpretation, numeracy, and genetic literacy.
RESULTS: In our cohort, numeracy level impacted PGx result interpretation, with those of high numeracy performing statistically significantly better on both the table format and graphical format (p value = 0.002 and p value <0.001, respectively) and genetic knowledge questions (p value <0.001) than those with low/average numeracy. In addition, previous GC did not impact test interpretation or genetic knowledge, but the number of individuals with prior GC was small (n = 26). DISCUSSION/
CONCLUSION: We found that numeracy had a significant impact on correct interpretation of PGx test reports. Because many individuals in the USA have low numeracy levels, it is extremely important that patients do not make their own medication management decision based on the test results and that they consult with their physicians about their PGx testing. The importance of consultation and discussion with providers about results should be emphasized on the test report.
© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetic counseling; Genetic test reports; Numeracy; Pharmacogenetic testing; Test interpretation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33445171      PMCID: PMC7920902          DOI: 10.1159/000512476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  18 in total

1.  The informed gatekeeper?: a commentary on genetic tests, marketing pressure and the role of primary care physicians.

Authors:  T A Caulfield
Journal:  Health Law Rev       Date:  2001

2.  The general public's understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results.

Authors:  J W Leighton; K Valverde; B A Bernhardt
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Measuring genetic knowledge: a brief survey instrument for adolescents and adults.

Authors:  S M Fitzgerald-Butt; A Bodine; K M Fry; J Ash; A N Zaidi; V Garg; C A Gerhardt; K L McBride
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 4.  Challenges of development and implementation of point of care pharmacogenetic testing.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 5.225

5.  Media Exposure and Genetic Literacy Skills to Evaluate Angelina Jolie's Decision for Prophylactic Mastectomy.

Authors:  Leah R Abrams; Laura M Koehly; Gillian W Hooker; Ryan S Paquin; Joseph N Capella; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: where and how does genetic counseling fit?

Authors:  Anna Middleton; Álvaro Mendes; Caroline M Benjamin; Heidi Carmen Howard
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 2.512

7.  Demographic disparities in numeracy among emergency department patients: evidence from two multicenter studies.

Authors:  Adit A Ginde; Sunday Clark; Joshua N Goldstein; Carlos A Camargo
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-05-06

8.  Increasing Public Awareness of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Health Care Access, Internet Use, and Population Density Correlates.

Authors:  Lila J Finney Rutten; Sarah E Gollust; Sana Naveed; Richard P Moser
Journal:  J Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2012-07-30

9.  Development and Testing of an Abbreviated Numeracy Scale: A Rasch Analysis Approach.

Authors:  Joshua A Weller; Nathan F Dieckmann; Martin Tusler; C K Mertz; William J Burns; Ellen Peters
Journal:  J Behav Decis Mak       Date:  2012-03-15

10.  New literacy challenge for the twenty-first century: genetic knowledge is poor even among well educated.

Authors:  Robert Chapman; Maxim Likhanov; Fatos Selita; Ilya Zakharov; Emily Smith-Woolley; Yulia Kovas
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2018-03-28
View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Moving Pharmacogenetics Into Practice: It's All About the Evidence!

Authors:  Jasmine A Luzum; Natasha Petry; Annette K Taylor; Sara L Van Driest; Henry M Dunnenberger; Larisa H Cavallari
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 6.903

Review 2.  A Scoping Review of Attitudes and Experiences with Pharmacogenomic Testing among Patients and the General Public: Implications for Patient Counseling.

Authors:  Josiah D Allen; Amy L Pittenger; Jeffrey R Bishop
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-03-09
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.