ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Exploring early intervention in psychosis (EIP) perspectives towards pharmacogenomics (PGx) implementation to support antipsychotic prescribing: a multi-method qualitative exploration.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is an emerging medicines optimization tool that may support efficacy and safety relating to antipsychotic prescribing. Despite growing drug-gene evidence linked to antipsychotic response, how PGx could be implemented within Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services, including the views of staff, service users, and carers remains underexplored. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with service users (n = 12), and online focus groups with EIP staff (n = 18), and carers (n = 3) across three National Health Service (NHS) EIP sites were analyzed using an integrative approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Five themes and seven sub-themes were synthesized to describe stakeholder perspectives on implementing PGx to support antipsychotic prescribing in EIP services. Participants characterized EIP as a complex care ecosystem and described varying levels of understanding about PGx. Findings highlighted key implementation considerations, including when PGx should be offered, communication strategies, concerns about its integration into EIP pathways, and preferences for embedding PGx within routine care. Discussion: PGx was broadly perceived as an acceptable clinical intervention, analogous to established medicines-safety checks. However, implementation should prioritize shared decision-making, set realistic expectations about clinical utility, and be adequately resourced to avoid displacing other therapeutic approaches. This study complements existing drug-gene evidence by providing insights into clinical workflow integration, governance, and service design considerations specific to EIP contexts. As the evidence base for routine PGx use matures, its introduction in EIP services should be framed as a supportive, person-centered adjunct, and not a determinant of antipsychotic decision-making.
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.