Given the expansion of genetics in medicine, there is a growing need to develop approaches to engage patients in understanding how genetics affects their health. Various qualitative methods have been applied to gain a deeper understanding of patient perspectives in topics related to genetics. Community dialogues (CD) are a bi-directional research method that invites community members to discuss a pertinent, challenging topic over the course of a multi-week period and the community members openly discuss their positions on the topic. Authors discuss the first application of the CD method to the topic of pharmacogenetics testing. Additional CD are needed to engage diverse participant populations on this topic to improve genetics literacy, enhance physician engagement and drive policy change.

Keywords:

References

1. Ladin K, Buttafarro K, Hahn E, Koch-Weser S, Weiner DE, Bowers BJ. “End-of-Life Care? I'm Not Going to Worry about That Yet.” Health Literacy Gaps and End-of-Life Planning among Elderly Dialysis Patients. Gerontologist 58(2), 290–299 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Kirby E, Lwin Z, Kenny K, Broom A, Birman H, Good P. “It Doesn't Exist…”: negotiating palliative care from a culturally and linguistically diverse patient and caregiver perspective. BMC Palliative Care 17(1), 90 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Hurle B, Citrin T, Jenkins JF et al. What does it mean to be genomically literate? National human genome research Institute meeting report. Genet. Med. 15(8), 658–663 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Kaphingst KA, Blanchard M, Milam L, Pokharel M, Elrick A, Goodman MS. Relationships between health literacy and genomics-related knowledge, self-efficacy, perceived importance, and communication in a medically underserved population. J. Health Commun. 21(Suppl. 1), 58–68 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Personalized Medicine Coalition. Personalized Medicine at FDA: the scope & significance of progress. (2020). https://www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org/Userfiles/PMC-Corporate/file/PM_at_FDA_The_Scope_Significance_of_Progress_in_2020.pdf
Google Scholar
6. Crowder JW, Determeyer PL. Optimizing community bioethics dialogues: reflections on enhancing bi-directional engagement on health care concerns. Narrat. Inq. Bioeth. 9(3), 259–273 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Bonham VL, Citrin T, Modell SM, Franklin TH, Bleicher EW, Fleck LM. Community-based dialogue: engaging communities of color in the United states' genetics policy conversation. J. Health Polit. Policy Law. 34(3), 325–359 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Garland MJ, Hasnain R. Health care in common: setting priorities in Oregon. Hastings Cent Rep. 20(5), 16–18 (1990).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Parker M. Ethnography/ethics. Soc. Sci. Med. 65(11), 2248–2259 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Panofsky A, Dasgupta K, Iturriaga N. How White nationalists mobilize genetics: from genetic ancestry and human biodiversity to counterscience and metapolitics. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol 175(2), 387–398 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Gibbon S. Calibrating cancer risk, uncertainty and environments: genetics and their contexts in southern Brazil. Biosocieties 13(4), 761–779 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Huniche L. Moral landscapes and everyday life in families with Huntington's disease: aligning ethnographic description and bioethics. Soc. Sci. Med. 72(11), 1810–1816 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Svendsen MN, Koch L. In the mood for science: a discussion of emotion management in a pharmacogenomics research encounter in Denmark. Soc. Sci. Med. 72(5), 781–788 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Soller JM, Ausband DE, Szykman Gunther M. The curse of observer experience: error in noninvasive genetic sampling. PLoS ONE 15(3), e0229762 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Lee KH, Bahk WM, Lee SJ, Serretti A, Pae CU. A practical utility and benefit of pharmacogenetic-based antidepressant treatment strategy for major depressive disorder patients with difficult-to-treat. Clin. Psychopharmacol. Neurosci. 19(1), 160–165 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Vest BM, Wray LO, Brady LA et al. Primary care and mental health providers' perceptions of implementation of pharmacogenetics testing for depression prescribing. BMC Psychiatry 20(1), 518 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Truong TM, Lipschultz E, Schierer E, Danahey K, Ratain MJ, O'Donnell PH. Patient insights on features of an effective pharmacogenomics patient portal. Pharmacogenet. Genomics 30(9), 191–200 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Holzer K, Culhane-Pera KA, Straka RJ et al. Hmong participants' reactions to return of individual and community pharmacogenetic research results: ‘A positive light for our community’. J. Community Genet. 12(1), 53–65 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Goodspeed A, Kostman N, Kriete TE et al. Leveraging the utility of pharmacogenomics in psychiatry through clinical decision support: a focus group study. Ann. Gen. Psychiatry 18, 13 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Dodson C. Oncology nurses' knowledge of pharmacogenomics before and after implementation of an education module. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 45(5), 575–580 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Mills R, Ensinger M, Callanan N, Haga SB. Development and initial assessment of a patient education video about pharmacogenetics. J. Pers. Med. 7(2), 4 (2017).
Google Scholar
22. Lee YM, McKillip RP, Borden BA et al. Assessment of patient perceptions of genomic testing to inform pharmacogenomic implementation. Pharmacogenet. Genomics 27(5), 179–189 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Joseph G, Chen F, Harris-Wai J et al. Parental views on expanded newborn screening using whole-genome sequencing. Pediatrics 137(Suppl. 1), S36–S46 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Deininger KM, Tran JN, Tsunoda SM et al. Stakeholder perspectives of the clinical utility of pharmacogenomic testing in solid organ transplantation. Pharmacogenomics 20(18), 1291–1302 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
25. Bright D, Worley M, Porter BL. Patient perceptions of pharmacogenomic testing in the community pharmacy setting. Res. Social Adm. Pharm. 17(4), 744–749 S1551-7411(19)30732-6 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Liko I, Lai E, Griffin RJ et al. Patients' perspectives on psychiatric pharmacogenetic testing. Pharmacopsychiatry 53(6), 256–261 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. Cheung FY, Pratt R, Shire A et al. Developing culturally informed genetic services for the Somali immigrants in Minnesota. J. Genet. Couns. 28(4), 887–896 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Rego S, Dagan-Rosenfeld O, Bivona SA et al. Much ado about nothing: a qualitative study of the experiences of an average-risk population receiving results of exome sequencing. J. Genet. Couns. 28(2), 428–437 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Wright AJ, Sutton S, Armstrong D et al. Factors influencing the impact of pharmacogenomic prescribing on adherence to nicotine replacement therapy: a qualitative study of participants from a randomized controlled trial. Transl. Behav. Med. 8(1), 18–28 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Sweet K, Hovick S, Sturm AC et al. Counselees' perspectives of genomic counseling following online receipt of multiple actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomic results: a qualitative research study. J. Genet. Couns. 26(4), 738–751 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Vassy JL, Christensen KD, Slashinski MJ et al. ‘Someday it will be the norm’: physician perspectives on the utility of genome sequencing for patient care in the MedSeq Project. Per. Med. 12(1), 23–32 (2015).
CASGoogle Scholar
32. Claudio-Campos K, Padrón A, Jerkins G et al. Acceptability, feasibility, and utility of integrating pharmacogenetic testing into a child psychiatry clinic. Clin. Transl. Sci. 14(2), 589–598 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Rahma AT, Elsheik M, Elbarazi I et al. Knowledge and attitudes of medical and health science students in the United Arab Emirates toward genomic medicine and pharmacogenomics: a cross-sectional study. J. Pers. Med. 10(4), 191 (2020).
Google Scholar
34. de Jong C, Herder GJM, Deneer VHM. Genetic variants as predictors of toxicity and response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer undergoing first-line platinum-based chemotherapy: design of the multicenter PGxLUNG study. Thorac. Cancer. 11(12), 3634–3640 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Smith DM, Namvar T, Brown RP et al. Assessment of primary care practitioners' attitudes and interest in pharmacogenomic testing. Pharmacogenomics 21(15), 1085–1094 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
36. Horne R, Chapman SC, Parham R, Freemantle N, Forbes A, Cooper V. Understanding patients' adherence-related beliefs about medicines prescribed for long-term conditions: a meta-analytic review of the Necessity-Concerns Framework. PLoS ONE 8(12), e80633 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Karas K, Prodan ŽI, Gurwitz D et al. Pharmacogenomics Education Working Group (PGxEWG); European Society of Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Therapy (ESPT). Pharmacogenomics education in medical and pharmacy schools: conclusions of a global survey. Pharmacogenomics 20(9), 643–657 (2019).
Google Scholar

Vol. 22, No. 11

Metrics

Downloaded 109 times

History

Received 1 February 2021

Accepted 25 May 2021

Published online 11 June 2021

Published in print July 2021

Information

Keywords

Acknowledgments

The authors thank OneOme for providing complimentary educational-use pharmacogenetics tests to study participants to enrich the experience of the community dialogue.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

E O'Mahony and B Esquivel are employees at OneOme, a commercial laboratory that offers a pharmacogenomics panel. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download