Racial Differences in Attitudes toward Personalized Medicine
Abstract
Background/Aims: Patient concerns regarding personalized medicine may limit its use. This study assesses racial differences in attitudes toward personalized medicine, evaluating variables that may influence these attitudes. Methods: A convenience sample of 190 adults (≥18 years) from an academic primary care practice was surveyed regarding awareness and acceptance of personalized medicine, plus concerns and benefits regarding its use. Logistic regressions predicting awareness, acceptance and concerns were performed, controlling for race, gender, marital status, education, children, internet use, and self-reported discrimination. Results: The sample was 35% non-Hispanic white (NHW) and 34.7% male. More NHW participants expressed acceptance of personalized medicine than non-Hispanic black (NHB) participants (94.4 vs. 81.9%, p = 0.0190). More NHBs were concerned about the use of genes without consent (57.3 vs. 20.6%, p < 0.0001), sharing genetic information without consent (65.0 vs. 35.6%, p < 0.0001), discrimination based on genes (62.4 vs. 34.3%, p = 0.0002), and lack of access due to cost (75.0 vs. 48.0%, p = 0.0002). In logistic regressions, NHBs (OR = 7.46, 95% CI = 3.04-18.32) and those self-reporting discrimination (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.22-6.78) had more concerns about the misuse of genes and costs associated with personalized medicine. Conclusion: Racial differences exist in attitudes toward personalized medicine and may be influenced by self-reported discrimination. Further study to understand factors influencing the acceptance of personalized medicine could help encourage its use.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Professionals and patients fear discrimination based on the results of genetic testing, particularly by insurance companies or employers.
“In addition to possible disparities in access to PM, professionals and patients fear discrimination based on the results of genetic testing [27, 79, 92, 97], particularly by insurance companies or employers [46, 51, 54, 63, 86, 94–96, 98, 115].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [97]
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
Assessing Patient Readiness for the Clinical Adoption of Personalized Medicine
Issa, A. M., Tufail, W., Hutchinson, J., Tenorio, J., & Baliga, M. P. (2009) · Public Health Genomics · doi:10.1159/000189629 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Erdmann, A., Rehmann-Sutter, C., & Bozzaro, C. (2021) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00682-8 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
When Personal Feels Invasive: Foreseeing Challenges in Precision Medicine Communication
Ratcliff, C. L., Kaphingst, K. A., & Jensen, J. D. (2018) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2017.1417514 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Diaz, V. A., Mainous III, A. G., Gavin, J. K., & Wilson, D.
- Affiliations
- Medical University of South Carolina (US)
- Claflin University (US)
- Venue
- Public Health Genomics
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2013-09-27
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-6
- ISSN
- 1422-2795 (ISSN-L)
- 1662-4246
- 1662-8063
- OpenAlex
- W2051349161
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 0.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Health Genomics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of South Carolina
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- personalized medicine, racial differences, patient attitudes, genetic discrimination, genetic privacy, genomic data sharing, access to genetic testing, cost barriers, non-Hispanic Black patients, self-reported discrimination, primary care patients
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attitude to Health, Black or African American, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Informed Consent, Male, Middle Aged, White People, Young Adult, Precision Medicine, Racism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review