ArticleImplementation science communications2026
Implementing pharmacogenetic-guided prescribing in general practice: a qualitative process evaluation.
Article in Implementation science communications, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome people experience side-effects from medicines which can lead to negative patient outcomes and increased NHS costs. Pharmacogenetic-guided prescribing supports the safety and effectiveness of medicines. The Pharmacogenetics Roll Out - Gauging Response to Service (PROGRESS) study is assessing the viability and utility of pharmacogenetic-guided prescribing in general practice. We conducted a parallel process evaluation to explore the barriers and enablers to implementing pharmacogenetic-guided prescribing in general practice, from a clinician perspective.
methodsTwenty-nine online semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 general practice staff across 20 sites in England implementing the PROGRESS study. We used a modified framework approach to analyse the data, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Normalisation Process Theory.
findingsClinicians saw value in offering pharmacogenetic-guided prescribing in general practice, but limited testing to where they perceived it provided greatest benefit. There was limited evidence of practices planning for implementation beyond setting up the PROGRESS study. Sites tailored delivery of pharmacogenetics to their local practice context, which acted as an enabler to implementation. Delivering pharmacogenetic-guided prescribing within the confines of a research study and clinicians' workload acted as barriers to implementation.
conclusionGeneral practice staff understood the value and purpose of pharmacogenetic-guided prescribing, but there was little evidence of wider practice involvement beyond raising awareness among staff. PROGRESS involvement was viewed as more as proof of concept for research purposes, rather than normalising pharmacogenetics into routine practice.
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.