Factors influencing uptake of pharmacogenetic testing in a diverse patient population

J. O'daniel, J. Lucas, P. Deverka, D. Ermentrout, G. Silvey, D. F. Lobach, S. B. Haga

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

22 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: The successful integration of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing into clinical care will require attention to patient attitudes. In this study, we aimed to identify the major reasons why patients would or would not consider PGx testing and whether these factors differed by race, socioeconomic and insurance status, and medical history. Methods: We developed and conducted a survey within the adult patient population of the Duke Family Medicine Center. Results: Of 75 completed surveys (65% African-American), 77% indicated they were 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to take a PGx test. Respondents who had experienced a side effect were significantly more likely to indicate they would take a PGx test and expressed greater interest in learning more about testing than those who had not. Drug safety and effectiveness were the major reasons to have PGx testing. Privacy concerns and lack of insurance coverage for testing were the major reasons to decline testing. Conclusions: We found no differences in interest in PGx tests by race or socioeconomic status, but found stronger interest from those with a history of side effects and private insurance. While the overall support of PGx testing is encouraging, greater reassurance of medical privacy and development of educational resources are needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)48-54
Number of pages7
JournalPublic Health Genomics
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2009
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Pharmacogenetic testing
  • Public attitudes
  • Side effects

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Genetics(clinical)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Factors influencing uptake of pharmacogenetic testing in a diverse patient population'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this