Cited by 32Biomedical Ethics and RegulationPharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Patient and interest organizations’ views on personalized medicine: a qualitative study

Open access
Budin-Ljøsne, Isabelle, Harris, Jennifer R.·2016·BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Personalized medicine (PM) aims to tailor disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment to individuals on the basis of their genes, lifestyle and environments. Patient and interest organizations (PIOs) may potentially play an important role in the realization of PM. This paper investigates the views and perspectives on PM of a variety of PIOs. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted among leading representatives of 13 PIOs located in Europe and North-America. The data collected were analysed using a conventional content analysis approach. RESULTS: The PIO representatives supported the realization of PM but feared that many financial, structural and organizational challenges may delay its realization. They encouraged strategies to modernize drug licencing mechanisms, develop research and data sharing infrastructures, and educate patients and health care professionals in PM. Notably, they emphasized the importance of developing PM in an equitable way and taking into consideration the patients' needs, values and personal situation. Despite varying levels of awareness regarding PM, the PIO representatives expressed willingness to engage in the PM agenda and recommended that PIOs work closely with policy-makers to design PM in a way that truly addresses the needs and concerns of patients. CONCLUSIONS: PIOs have the potential to become central drivers of the PM agenda. Collaborations should be further developed between PIOs, researchers, drug developers and health care authorities.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12910-016-0111-7

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Incidental findings, variants of unknown significance or results that indicate a high risk for an incurable disease can affect the well-being of patients.

    “Incidental findings [79, 96], variants of unknown significance [79] or results that indicate a high risk for an incurable disease can affect the well-being of patients [51].”

    From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [96]

    In Results > PM challenges (page unavailable), a representative says unexpected genetic findings can give patients information that is “hard to digest,” supporting a possible effect on well-being. The passage does not specifically address results indicating a high risk of an incurable disease, the clause to which this citation is attached. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Professionals, patients and representatives from patient organizations are concerned about whether health insurance companies will cover the costs or patients can pay for them.

    “For example, professionals [45, 120], patients and representatives from patient organizations are concerned about whether health insurance companies will cover the costs [51, 63, 76] or patients can pay for them [61, 95, 96].”

    From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [96]

    The Results section (‘PM challenges’) reports that patient-organization representatives feared targeted drugs were too expensive for patients unless payers fully covered them. This supports the concern about coverage and affordability, but the passage does not establish that patients themselves expressed it or identify the payers specifically as health insurance companies. The sentence cites other sources for professionals’ concerns. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [4]Committee on a Framework for Development of a New Taxonomy of Disease. National Research Council of the National Academies. Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease. The National Academies Press; 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91503/. Accessed 4 Dec 2015. 22536618
  2. [8]European Alliance for Personalised Medicine. Report from Irish Presidency Conference. Innovation and Patient Access to Personalised Medicine. http://euapm.eu/pdf/EAPM_REPORT_on_Innovation_and_Patient_Access_to_Personalised_Medicine.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2015.
  3. [18]Marcus AD. Patients with rare diseases work to jump-start research. Wall Street journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115257685637802872. Accessed 4 Dec 2015. 16906687

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Budin-Ljøsne, I., & Harris, J. R.
Affiliations
Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
Venue
BMC Medical Ethics
Published
2016-05-13
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
28-28
ISSN
1472-6939 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2353511237
Cited by
32
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
FWCI
3.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Medical Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Norwegian Cancer Genomics Consortium (NFR BIOTEK2021/ES495029)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
personalized medicine, stakeholder perspectives, drug approval, data sharing infrastructure, health equity, patient education, health policy, stakeholder collaboration, implementation barriers
MeSH terms
Attitude, Consumer Advocacy, Community Participation, Delivery of Health Care, Europe, Humans, North America, Organizations, Nonprofit, Research, Qualitative Research, Precision Medicine

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