Kelly Drelles, Robert Pilarski, Kandamurugu Manickam, Abigail B Shoben, Amanda Ewart Toland
{"title":"以前的遗传咨询和客观计算对药物遗传学测试报告准确解释的影响。","authors":"Kelly Drelles, Robert Pilarski, Kandamurugu Manickam, Abigail B Shoben, Amanda Ewart Toland","doi":"10.1159/000512476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing can be useful for providing information about a patient's drug response by increasing drug efficacy and decreasing the incidence of adverse drug events. While PGx tests were previously only offered to patients under healthcare provider supervision, they are now available as direct to consumer (DTC) tests. This study aimed to assess how accurately individuals from the general population were able to interpret a sample PGx test report and if accuracy differed based on individuals' numeracy or prior genetic counseling (GC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed 293 individuals from the general population, ascertained through ResearchMatch. The survey included questions about PGx test interpretation, numeracy, and genetic literacy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our cohort, numeracy level impacted PGx result interpretation, with those of high numeracy performing statistically significantly better on both the table format and graphical format (p value = 0.002 and p value <0.001, respectively) and genetic knowledge questions (p value <0.001) than those with low/average numeracy. In addition, previous GC did not impact test interpretation or genetic knowledge, but the number of individuals with prior GC was small (n = 26).</p><p><strong>Discussion/conclusion: </strong>We found that numeracy had a significant impact on correct interpretation of PGx test reports. Because many individuals in the USA have low numeracy levels, it is extremely important that patients do not make their own medication management decision based on the test results and that they consult with their physicians about their PGx testing. The importance of consultation and discussion with providers about results should be emphasized on the test report.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"26-32"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000512476","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Previous Genetic Counseling and Objective Numeracy on Accurate Interpretation of a Pharmacogenetics Test Report.\",\"authors\":\"Kelly Drelles, Robert Pilarski, Kandamurugu Manickam, Abigail B Shoben, Amanda Ewart Toland\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000512476\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing can be useful for providing information about a patient's drug response by increasing drug efficacy and decreasing the incidence of adverse drug events. While PGx tests were previously only offered to patients under healthcare provider supervision, they are now available as direct to consumer (DTC) tests. This study aimed to assess how accurately individuals from the general population were able to interpret a sample PGx test report and if accuracy differed based on individuals' numeracy or prior genetic counseling (GC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed 293 individuals from the general population, ascertained through ResearchMatch. The survey included questions about PGx test interpretation, numeracy, and genetic literacy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our cohort, numeracy level impacted PGx result interpretation, with those of high numeracy performing statistically significantly better on both the table format and graphical format (p value = 0.002 and p value <0.001, respectively) and genetic knowledge questions (p value <0.001) than those with low/average numeracy. In addition, previous GC did not impact test interpretation or genetic knowledge, but the number of individuals with prior GC was small (n = 26).</p><p><strong>Discussion/conclusion: </strong>We found that numeracy had a significant impact on correct interpretation of PGx test reports. Because many individuals in the USA have low numeracy levels, it is extremely important that patients do not make their own medication management decision based on the test results and that they consult with their physicians about their PGx testing. The importance of consultation and discussion with providers about results should be emphasized on the test report.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Genomics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"26-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000512476\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Genomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000512476\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000512476","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Impact of Previous Genetic Counseling and Objective Numeracy on Accurate Interpretation of a Pharmacogenetics Test Report.
Introduction: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing can be useful for providing information about a patient's drug response by increasing drug efficacy and decreasing the incidence of adverse drug events. While PGx tests were previously only offered to patients under healthcare provider supervision, they are now available as direct to consumer (DTC) tests. This study aimed to assess how accurately individuals from the general population were able to interpret a sample PGx test report and if accuracy differed based on individuals' numeracy or prior genetic counseling (GC).
Methods: We surveyed 293 individuals from the general population, ascertained through ResearchMatch. The survey included questions about PGx test interpretation, numeracy, and genetic literacy.
Results: In our cohort, numeracy level impacted PGx result interpretation, with those of high numeracy performing statistically significantly better on both the table format and graphical format (p value = 0.002 and p value <0.001, respectively) and genetic knowledge questions (p value <0.001) than those with low/average numeracy. In addition, previous GC did not impact test interpretation or genetic knowledge, but the number of individuals with prior GC was small (n = 26).
Discussion/conclusion: We found that numeracy had a significant impact on correct interpretation of PGx test reports. Because many individuals in the USA have low numeracy levels, it is extremely important that patients do not make their own medication management decision based on the test results and that they consult with their physicians about their PGx testing. The importance of consultation and discussion with providers about results should be emphasized on the test report.
期刊介绍:
''Public Health Genomics'' is the leading international journal focusing on the timely translation of genome-based knowledge and technologies into public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole. This peer-reviewed journal is a bimonthly forum featuring original papers, reviews, short communications, and policy statements. It is supplemented by topic-specific issues providing a comprehensive, holistic and ''all-inclusive'' picture of the chosen subject. Multidisciplinary in scope, it combines theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplines, notably public health, molecular and medical sciences, the humanities and social sciences. In so doing, it also takes into account rapid scientific advances from fields such as systems biology, microbiomics, epigenomics or information and communication technologies as well as the hight potential of ''big data'' for public health.