Stephani L Stancil1,2,3, Courtney Berrios4, Susan Abdel-Rahman2,3. 1. Division of Adolescent Medicine, Children's Mercy Kansas City, MO 64108, USA. 2. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Toxicology & Therapeutic Innovation, Children's Mercy Kansas City, MO 64108, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, MO 64108, USA. 4. Genomic Medicine Center, Children's Mercy Kansas City, MO 64108, USA.
Abstract
Background: Despite the expansion of pharmacogenetics (PGx), the views of pediatric patients remain unknown. This study explores adolescents' understanding and perceptions of PGx testing. Methods: Adolescents who had PGx testing were interviewed and their electronic health records were reviewed. Results: Adolescents accurately described reason for testing and most felt the results impacted their current and future care. None perceived risks to securing future employment or insurance. All felt PGx would benefit their peers. Conclusion: Adolescents understand the reasons for PGx and perceive testing to be useful, low risk and applicable to peers. Findings from this study advocate for the inclusion of adolescents in shared decision-making regarding testing and for active engagement in the discussion of results.
Background: Despite the expansion of pharmacogenetics (PGx), the views of pediatric patients remain unknown. This study explores adolescents' understanding and perceptions of PGx testing. Methods: Adolescents who had PGx testing were interviewed and their electronic health records were reviewed. Results: Adolescents accurately described reason for testing and most felt the results impacted their current and future care. None perceived risks to securing future employment or insurance. All felt PGx would benefit their peers. Conclusion: Adolescents understand the reasons for PGx and perceive testing to be useful, low risk and applicable to peers. Findings from this study advocate for the inclusion of adolescents in shared decision-making regarding testing and for active engagement in the discussion of results.
Authors: Abigail English; M Jane Park; Mary-Ann Shafer; Richard E Kreipe; Lawrence J D'Angelo Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2009-07-12 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Jeffrey R Botkin; John W Belmont; Jonathan S Berg; Benjamin E Berkman; Yvonne Bombard; Ingrid A Holm; Howard P Levy; Kelly E Ormond; Howard M Saal; Nancy B Spinner; Benjamin S Wilfond; Joseph D McInerney Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Amy A Lemke; Peter J Hulick; Dyson T Wake; Chi Wang; Annette W Sereika; Kristen Dilzell Yu; Nicole S Glaser; Henry M Dunnenberger Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: T L McGregor; S L Van Driest; K B Brothers; E A Bowton; L J Muglia; D M Roden Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Michael Mrazek; Barbara Koenig; Michelle Skime; Karen Snyder; Christopher Hook; John Black; David Mrazek Journal: Acad Psychiatry Date: 2007 Nov-Dec
Authors: Haridarshan N Patel; Iulia D Ursan; Patrick M Zueger; Larisa H Cavallari; A Simon Pickard Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Pablo Zubiaur; David Nicolás Prósper-Cuesta; Jesús Novalbos; Gina Mejía-Abril; Marcos Navares-Gómez; Gonzalo Villapalos-García; Paula Soria-Chacartegui; Francisco Abad-Santos Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-02-12