ArticleClinical and translational science2026
Evaluating Perceived Value of Pharmacogenomic Testing After a Personalized Therapeutics Clinic Consultation.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating Perceived Value of Pharmacogenomic Testing After a Personalized Therapeutics Clinic Consultation.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacogenomics (PGx) offers patients personalized treatment by guiding medication selection and dosing based on their genetic profiles. However, widespread clinical implementation remains limited, in part due to patient and provider concerns about cost and willingness to pay (WTP). This study evaluated whether an outpatient clinical consultation that educates patients on their PGx results influences their WTP for PGx testing. As part of the PROTECT-Rx trial at the University of Chicago, high-risk patients received free PGx testing and a virtual consultation at the Personalized Therapeutics Clinic (PTC). Patients completed pre- and post-visit surveys assessing PGx knowledge and WTP. Of 129 patients who had completed a PTC visit as of 1/2025, 76 completed both the PTC visit and surveys. WTP for PGx testing increased significantly from 68% pre-visit to 83% post-visit (p = 0.029). After controlling for social vulnerability, patients who had at least one cautionary or high-risk PGx result were nearly 3 times more likely to report higher willingness-to-pay (OR 2.76, p = 0.037). A single PGx consultation with review of personal results significantly increases patients' WTP for testing, particularly among those with actionable PGx results. Understanding individual risk and the relevance of PGx enhances perceived value, suggesting that patient education is an important component in the broader adoption of pharmacogenomic testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.