Healthcare provider and patient perspectives on the implementation of pharmacogenetic-guided treatment in routine clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand patient and healthcare provider perspectives on the integration and application of pharmacogenetics (PGx) testing in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Two anonymous online surveys were distributed globally for healthcare providers and patients respectively on the Qualtrics platform (version 3.24). The surveys were distributed through social platforms, email, and posters with QR codes from 27 October 2023 to 7 March 2024. The surveys evaluated participant familiarity with PGx, previous experience with PGx testing, perceived implementation challenges, and opinions on point-of-care (PoC) PGx testing devices. RESULTS: This study collected 78 responses from healthcare providers and 98 responses from patients. The results revealed that 64% of healthcare providers had some level of familiarity with PGx, however, PGx testing in clinical practice was low. The primary challenges identified by healthcare providers included limited access to testing and lack of knowledge on PGx test interpretation. In contrast, 52% of patient respondents were aware of PGx testing, with a significant association between awareness and positive opinions toward PGx. Both healthcare providers and patients recognized the value of PoC PGx testing devices, with 98% of healthcare providers and 71% of patients believing PoC devices would improve the accessibility and implementation of PGx testing. Comparative analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in PGx awareness between healthcare providers and patients, with providers being more informed. CONCLUSION: Improved PGx awareness, training, clinical guidelines, and PoC PGx testing devices may help promote the implementation of PGx-guided treatments in routine clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".