Addressing ethical challenges at the intersection of pharmacogenomics and primary care using deliberative consultations

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: •• of considerable interest

References

• 1 Harper A, Topol E. Pharmacogenomics in clinical practice and drug development. Nat. Biotechnol. 30(11), 1117–1124 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2 Bartlett G, Antoun J, Zgheib NK. Theranostics in primary care: pharmacogenomics tests and beyond. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 12(8), 841–855 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3 Grice GR, Seaton TL, Woodland AM, Mcleod HL. Defining the opportunity for pharmacogenetic intervention in primary care. Pharmacogenomics 7(1), 61–65 (2006).
  Google Scholar
• 4 Soumerai SB, Mclaughlin TJ, Avorn J. Improving drug prescribing in primary care: a critical analysis of the experimental literature. Milbank Q. 83(4), doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00435.x (2005).
  Google Scholar
• 5 De Bakker DH, Coffie DS, Heerdink ER, Van Dijk L, Groenewegen PP. Determinants of the range of drugs prescribed in general practice: a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Health Serv. Res. 7(1), 132 (2007).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6 Bartlett G, Rahimzadeh V, Longo C et al. The future of genomic testing in primary care: the changing face of personalized medicine. Per. Med. 11(5), 477–486 (2014). •• This perspective article provides further details on the importance of primary care in the clinical application of personalized medicine and particularly pharmacogenomics.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 7 Vegter S, Jansen E, Postma MJ, Boersma C. Economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and genomic screening programs: update of the literature. Drug Dev. Res. 71(8), 492–501 (2010).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 8 Hajjar ER, Hanlon JT, Artz MB et al. Adverse drug reaction risk factors in older outpatients. Am. J. Geriatr. Pharmacother. 1(2), 82–89 (2003).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9 Burgess MM, O'Doherty K, Socko D. Biobanking in British Columbia: discussions of the future of personalized medicine through deliberative public engagement. Per. Med. 5(3), 285–296 (2008). •• This original research article demonstrates the use of public deliberation as an efficient method for policy input and decision-marking in the field of personalized medicine.
  Google Scholar
• 10 Haga SB, Burke W, Ginsburg GS, Mills R, Agans R. Primary care physicians’ knowledge of and experience with pharmacogenetic testing. Clin. Genet. 82(4), 388–394 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11 Mcguire AL, Caulfield T, Cho MK. Science and society – research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat. Rev. Genetics 9(2), 152–156 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12 Shields AE, Lerman C. Anticipating clinical integration of pharmacogenetic treatment strategies for addiction: are primary care physicians ready? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 83(4), 635–639 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 13 Rahimzadeh V, Bartlett G. Genetics and primary care: where are we headed? J. Transl. Med. 12, 238 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 14 Chambers S. Deliberative democratic theory. Political Science 6, 307–326 (2003).
  Google Scholar
• 15 Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG. Patient partnership in decision-making on biomedical research – changing the network. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 32(3), 339–368 (2007).
  Google Scholar
• 16 Cargo M, Mercer SL. The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice. Annu. Rev. Public Health 29, 325–350 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17 Tenbensel T. Virtual special issue introduction: public participation in health policy in high income countries – a review of why, who, what, which, and where? Soc. Sci. Med. 71(9), 1537–1540 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 18 Fishkin JS. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy And Public Consultation. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (2009).
  Google Scholar
• 19 Walmsley H. Biobanking, public consultation, and the discursive logics of deliberation: five lessons from British Columbia. Public Underst. Sci. 19(4), 452–468 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 20 Dryzek JS, Niemeyer S. Foundations And Frontiers Of Deliberative Governance. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (2010).
  Google Scholar
• 21 Dryzek JS. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, And Political Science. Cambridge University Press, NY, USA (1990).
  Google Scholar
• 22 Gutmann A, Thompson DF. Democracy And Disagreement. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, MA, USA (1996).
  Google Scholar
• 23 De Vries R, Stanczyk A, Wall IF, Uhlmann R, Damschroder LJ, Kim SY. Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. Soc. Sci. Med. 70(12), 1896–1903 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24 De Vries R, Stanczyk AE, Ryan KA, Kim SY. A framework for assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: enhancing deliberation as a tool for bioethics. J. Empir Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 6(3), 3–17 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25 Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc. Sci. Med. 57(2), 239–251 (2003).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 26 O'Doherty K, Gauvin FP, Grogan C, Friedman W. Implementing a public deliberative forum. Hastings Cent. Rep. 42(2), 20–23 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 27 Habermas J. Morality and ethical life – does Hegel critique of Kant apply to discourse ethics. Northwest U Law Rev. 83(1–2), 38–53 (1989).
  Google Scholar
• 28 O'Doherty K. Synthesising the outputs of deliberation: extracting meaningful results from a public forum. J. Public Deliberation 9(1), 8 (2013).
  Google Scholar
• 29 Wendler D. Broad versus blanket consent for research with human biological samples. Hastings Cent. Rep. 43(5), 3–4 (2012).
  Google Scholar
• 30 Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research – “Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap. JAMA 297(4), 403–406 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31 Green LW, Ottoson JM, Garcia C, Hiatt RA. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 30, 151–174 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar