Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

On the readiness of physicians for pharmacogenomics testing: an empirical assessment

The Pharmacogenomics Journal volume 18, pages 308–318 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the determinants of adoption of pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing by clinicians, and to assess whether this adoption differs with regard to area of specialization. Data were collected from a web-based survey among physicians in Québec (Canada). Our results highlighted that they perceived several benefits and had favorable attitudes toward PGx tests, but felt unprepared to use them. Results also show that practice specialties matter. Notably, being a family physician decreases the likelihood of adopting PGx tests. This might be explained by the fact that they perceived fewer benefits, used fewer sources of information, and received less training in PGx than their colleagues in other specialties. This is of particular concern given that family physicians are at the forefront of the healthcare system. Overcoming two knowledge barriers, that is, lack of information and clinical guidelines on PGx tests, might enhance physicians’ readiness to adopt PGx testing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chouchane L, Mamtani R, Dallol A, Sheikh JI . Personalized medicine: a patient-centered paradigm. J Transl Med 2011; 9: 206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kalow W . Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics: origin, status, and the hope for personalized medicine. Pharmacogenomics J 2006; 6: 162–165.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sadée W, Dai Z . Pharmacogenetics/genomics and personalized medicine. Hum Mol Genet 2005; 14 (suppl 2): R207–R214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alagoz O, Durham D, Kasirajan K . Cost-effectiveness of one-time genetic testing to minimize lifetime adverse drug reactions. Pharmacogenomics J 2016; 16: 129–136.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Field TS, Gilman BH, Subramanian S, Fuller JC, Bates DW, Gurwitz JH . The costs associated with adverse drug events among older adults in the ambulatory setting. Med Care 2005; 43: 1171–1176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hamburg MA, Collins FS . The path to personalized medicine. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 301–304.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nuckols TK, Paddock SM, Bower AG, Rothschild JM, Fairbanks RJ, Carlson B et al. Costs of intravenous adverse drug events in academic and nonacademic intensive care units. Med Care 2008; 46: 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vargas E, Terleira A, Hernando F, Perez E, Cordón C, Moreno A et al. Effect of adverse drug reactions on length of stay in surgical intensive care units. Crit Care Med 2003; 31: 694–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crews KR, Hicks JK, Pui CH, Relling MV, Evans WE . Pharmacogenomics and individualized medicine: translating science into practice. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012; 92: 467–475.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferraldeschi R, Newman WG . Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics: a clinical reality. Ann Clin Biochem 2011; 48: 410–417.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stanek E, Sanders C, Taber KJ, Khalid M, Patel A, Verbrugge R et al. Adoption of pharmacogenomic testing by US physicians: results of a nationwide survey. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012; 91: 450–458.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mutsatsa S, Currid T . Pharmacogenetics: a reality or misplaced optimism? J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2013; 20: 314–320.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Joly Y, Burton H, Knoppers BM, Feze IN, Dent T, Pashayan N et al. Life insurance: genomic stratification and risk classification. Eur J Hum Genet 2014; 22: 575–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Speicher MR, Geigl JB, Tomlinson IP . Effect of genome-wide association studies, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and high-speed sequencing technologies on predictive genetic counselling for cancer risk. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 890–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Holt DT, Helfrich CD, Hall CG, Weiner BJ . Are you ready? How health professionals can comprehensively conceptualize readiness for change. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25: 50–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonter K, Desjardins C, Currier N, Pun J, Ashbury FD . Personalised medicine in Canada: a survey of adoption and practice in oncology, cardiology and family medicine. BMJ Open 2011; 1: e000110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Avard D, Silverstein T, Sillon G, Joly Y . Researchers’ perceptions of the ethical implications of pharmacogenomics research with children. Public Health Genomics 2009; 12: 191–201.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dodson C . Knowledge and attitudes of oncology nurses regarding pharmacogenomic testing. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2014; 18: E64–E70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Égalité N, Özdemir V, Godard B . Pharmacogenomics research involving racial classification: qualitative research findings on researchers' views, perceptions and attitudes towards socioethical responsibilities. Pharmacogenomics 2007; 8: 1115–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Haga SB, Burke W, Ginsburg GS, Mills R, Agans R . Primary care physicians' knowledge of and experience with pharmacogenetic testing. Clin Genet 2012; 82: 388–394.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rogausch A, Prause D, Schallenberg A, Brockmöller J, Himmel W . Patients' and physicians' perspectives on pharmacogenetic testing. Future Med 2006; 7: 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Roederer MW, Van Riper M, Valgus J, Knafl G, McLeod H . Knowledge, attitudes and education of pharmacists regarding pharmacogenetic testing. Per Med 2012; 9: 19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. El-Ibiary SY, Cheng C, Alldredge B . Potential roles for pharmacists in pharmacogenetics. J Am Pharm Assoc 2008; 48: e21–e32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fargher EA, Eddy C, Newman W, Qasim F, Tricker K, Elliott RA et al. Patients' and healthcare professionals' views on pharmacogenetic testing and its future delivery in the NHS. Pharmacogenomics 2007; 8: 1511–1519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ghaddar F, Cascorbi I, Zgheib NK . Clinical implementation of pharmacogenetics: a nonrepresentative explorative survey to participants of WorldPharma 2010. Pharmacogenomics 2011; 12: 1051–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Deverka PA, Vernon J, McLeod HL . Economic opportunities and challenges for pharmacogenomics. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2010; 50: 423–437.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Schnoll R, Shields A . Physician barriers to incorporating pharmacogenetic treatment strategies for nicotine dependence into clinical practice. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011; 89: 345.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Haga SB, Carrig MM, O’Daniel JM, Orlando LA, Killeya-Jones LA, Ginsburg GS et al. Genomic risk profiling: attitudes and use in personal and clinical care of primary care physicians who offer risk profiling. J Gen Intern Med 2011; 26: 834–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Meadows N, Morrison A, Brindley D, Schuh A, Barker R . An evaluation of regulatory and commercial barriers to stratified medicine development and adoption. Pharmacogenomics J 2015; 15: 6–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Cummings GG, Estabrooks CA, Midodzi WK, Wallin L, Hayduk L . Influence of organizational characteristics and context on research utilization. Nurs Res 2007; 56: S24–S39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hoop JG, Lapid MI, Paulson RM, Roberts LW . Clinical and ethical considerations in pharmacogenetic testing: views of physicians in 3 “early adopting” departments of psychiatry. J Clin Psychiatry 2010; 71: 745–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Challen K, Harris HJ, Julian-Reynier C, ten Kate LP, Kristoffersson U, Nippert I et al. Genetic education and nongenetic health professionals: educational providers and curricula in Europe. Genet Med 2005; 7: 302–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Haga SB, Tindall G, O'Daniel JM . Professional perspectives about pharmacogenetic testing and managing ancillary findings. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2012; 16: 21–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rogers EM . Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, A division of Simon and Schuster Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Barlett JE, Kotrlik JW, Higgins CC . Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Inform Technol Learn Perform J 2001; 19: 43.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cochran WG . Sampling Techniques, 3rd edn. John Wiley and Sons: New York, USA, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lipsey MW . Design Sensitivity: Statistical Power for Experimental Research Vol. 19. SAGE Publications Ltd.: CA, USA, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G . Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009; 41: 1149–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Field A . Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th edn. SAGE Publication Ltd.: London, UK, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Miller FA, Krueger P, Christensen RJ, Ahern C, Carter RF, Kamel-Reid S . Postal survey of physicians and laboratories: practices and perceptions of molecular oncology testing. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9: 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Peterson J, Field J, Shi Y, Schildcrout J, Denny J, McGregor T et al. Attitudes of clinicians following large-scale pharmacogenomics implementation. Pharmacogenomics J 2015; 16: 393–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Higgs JE, Andrews J, Gurwitz D, Payne K, Newman W . Pharmacogenetics education in British medical schools. Genomic Med 2008; 2: 101–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Burton H, Jackson C, Abubakar I . The impact of genomics on public health practice. Br Med Bull 2014; 112: 37–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Dancey JE, Bedard PL, Onetto N, Hudson TJ . The genetic basis for cancer treatment decisions. Cell 2012; 148: 409–420.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Khoury MJ, Coates RJ, Fennell ML, Glasgow RE, Scheuner MT, Schully SD et al. Multilevel research and the challenges of implementing genomic medicine. JNCI Monographs 2012; 2012: 112–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Raghavan S, Vassy JL . Do physicians think genomic medicine will be useful for patient care? Per Med 2014; 11: 425–433.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. O’Daniel J, Lucas J, Deverka P, Ermentrout D, Silvey G, Lobach D et al. Factors influencing uptake of pharmacogenetic testing in a diverse patient population. Public Health Genomics 2009; 13: 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA . Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 1990: 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Zahra SA, George G . Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manage Rev 2002; 27: 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank The Québec Network for Personalized Health Care (QNPHC) who provided financial support for the development of the survey instrument as well as for the data collection used in this study. We also gratefully thank the two medical federations of Québec: Québec Federation of General Practitioners (FMOQ) and Québec Federation of Specialist Physicians (FMSQ), who agreed to send the questionnaire to their members. We also wish to acknowledge the contribution of Mrs Paule Deblois and the panel of 7 experts in the questionnaire development. We also thank Dr EJ Stanek who kindly accepted to share with them the survey instrument developed for the National Pharmacogenomics Survey 2008 (Stanek et al., 2012). Finally, we thank all the physicians who enlightened the study with their opinions and valuable experiences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Pavillon Palasis-Prince, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada

    N Amara & J Blouin-Bougie

  2. Department of Management, The Québec Network for Personalized Health Care (QNPHC), Montréal, Québec, Canada

    D Bouthillier

  3. Department of Molecular Medicine, Cancer Genomics Laboratory, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada

    J Simard

Authors
  1. N Amara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J Blouin-Bougie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D Bouthillier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J Simard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N Amara.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix 1

Table 9 Definitions of independent variables
Full size table

PowerPoint slides

PowerPoint slide for Fig. 1

PowerPoint slide for Fig. 2

Appendix 2

Appendix 2

Table 10 Variety of use of sources of information on pharmacogenomics and genomics
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amara, N., Blouin-Bougie, J., Bouthillier, D. et al. On the readiness of physicians for pharmacogenomics testing: an empirical assessment. Pharmacogenomics J 18, 308–318 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/tpj.2017.22

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/tpj.2017.22

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links