Patients’ Experiences of a Precision Medicine Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of patients' experiences using a precision medicine (PM) clinic that conducts pharmacogenomics-based (PGx) testing for adverse drug reactions. The study aimed to identify the features of the clinic valued most by patients and areas for improvement. A paper survey was used to collect data. Survey questions focused on patients' perceptions of the PM testing and the overall clinic experience. Sixty-seven patients completed the survey. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS and frequencies were reported. Open-ended responses were coded and organized thematically. Patients reported that the clinic services increased confidence in their medication usage. Feeling respected by staff, receiving education, and quick appointments were highly valued by patients. Suggested areas for improvement included better communication from the clinic to patients, expansion of clinic services, and education for other healthcare providers. The findings demonstrate that patient experience goes beyond the clinical care provided. Current and potential future providers of PM should invest the time and energy to configure their care delivery system to enhance the patient experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".