Introduction
The article under consideration is a secondary qualitative meta-analysis of primary findings on one of the most significant research topics in current health care. The article “Patient and health care provider needs and preferences in understanding pharmacogenomic and genomic testing: A meta-data analysis” was written by three authors: Sophie Veilleux, Maud Bouffard, and Mijanou Bourque Bouliane. All the researchers work at the same institution, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada.
The study was published in 2020, which signifies its recency and actuality. “Qualitative Health Research,” in which the article was published, is a reputable peer-reviewed monthly journal offering an interdisciplinary forum for health care enhancement and understanding of qualitative investigations in healthcare institutions (“Qualitative Health Research,” n.d.). The journal holds membership in the Committee on Publication Ethics and invites scholars from different countries to disseminate their research findings. The article by Veilleux et al. (2020) focuses on pharmacogenomic and genomic testing, which is one of the core aspects of discussion in modern health care. The careful analysis of the study’s purpose, main idea, argument, strengths, and limitations allows considering it as a valuable and reliable source for expanding knowledge on health care providers’ and patients’ needs in understanding genomic and pharmacogenomic testing.
Identification
The article is a comparative analysis of scholarly data from 36 studies. The process of selecting articles for analysis consisted of several steps, starting with 3037 sources identified through database search in the beginning and ending up with those meeting the eligibility criteria (Veilleux et al., 2020). The authors have consolidated diverse studies into a unified whole with the help of which a fresh interpretation of findings could be obtained.
The purpose of the article is to analyze patients’ and health care providers’ needs in understanding pharmacogenomic and genomic testing. As a result of their analysis, Veilleux et al. (2020) have singled out three major themes in the area of investigation: (1) knowledge and perception of pharmacogenomics and genetics, (2) practices with genomic, genetic, and pharmacogenomic testing (PGx), and (3) educational resources. With the help of the obtained data, scholars have become able to single out ways of directing efforts to promote the use of PGx in current health care practices.
The study’s main argument is that by synthesizing qualitative and quantitative data available, it will be easier to understand the needs of health care providers and patients in the sphere of genomics and pharmacogenomics, which will lead to considerable improvements in the process of treatment. Since the issue of genomics has emerged comparatively recently, scholars have not limited their search by publication dates (Veilleux et al., 2020). The majority of sources referring to genomics and pharmacogenomics in the reference list are dated by the last several years, which adds to the study’s reliability.
Evaluation
The article’s argument is convincing since it is based on an adequate sample of scholarly studies. Furthermore, to achieve their purpose, scholars have logically divided findings into three large sections for convenience and better comprehension of the study’s results. The first section is dedicated to patients’ and the public’s perspective on genetics and pharmacogenomics. In this chapter, Veilleux et al. (2020) provide relevant data on the issues related to patients’ PGx knowledge. Statistical data and respondents’ experiences from various sources are relevant and sufficient to understand the core point of the section.
The next part focuses on the health care providers’ perspective, and it is also highly useful and informative. Veilleux et al. (2020) have carefully selected a number of studies pertinent to the benefits and limitations on the way of health care employees to obtaining and utilizing genomics and pharmacogenomics. The authors have singled out the major barriers preventing professionals from implementing PGx and genomic testing in all cases that seem suitable. Many current research findings have been utilized by Veilleux et al. (2020) to present a reliable reflection of the situation, including those by Borden et al. (2019), Calzone et al. (2018), Caraballo et al. (2016), Caudle et al. (2016), Champlin et al. (2016), Dodson (2018), Dunnenberger et al. (2016), and Haga et al. (2016).
In the third major findings section, the authors synthesize the main results pertaining to the informational and educational resources needed for patients and health care providers to gain the highest benefits of genomic and PGx testing implementation. Such significant aspects as the preferable format of educational materials and its content are discussed. Veilleux et al. (2020) make conclusions as to what methods of presenting information on genomics and pharmacogenomics to patients and health care professionals are the most effective.
The article by Veilleux et al. (2020) is both applicable and useful since it is based on solid evidence and a thorough analysis of the research question. Scholars have managed to cover the main aspects related to the use of genomics and pharmacogenomics data in healthcare settings. Data have been synthesized and presented in the form of quotations from respondents, figures, and tables, enabling the readers to locate the necessary information easily.
Response
Overall, the article by Veilleux et al. (2020) may be assessed positively in regard to the significance of the issues raised by the authors and the professionalism with which they have analyzed and synthesized data. Evident strengths of the study are the sufficient sample size, logical division of findings into meaningful sections, and thorough investigation of problems related to the current state of affairs in the areas of genomics and pharmacogenomics. At the same time, it is possible to single out several limitations of the study. Firstly, the authors might have omitted some articles due to being limited by certain keywords. Secondly, the female population representatives were more numerous than males, which poses a certain gender-based bias or, in the least, an unequal analysis. Finally, most of the studies included in the meta-analysis incorporated respondents with higher education, which eliminates the understanding of the issue by those with the lack of such education. All of these limitations are acknowledged by the authors, which ascertains that Veilleux et al.’s (2020) approach to analysis and self-critique is a professional one.
Conclusion
The study by Veilleux et al. (2020) is a reliable and relevant source for anyone studying pharmacogenomic and genomic testing in current health care. The authors have utilized a sufficient number of sources to perform their meta-analysis. As a result, they were able to single out three principal areas of research in the selected field. The professional analysis of pertinent scholarly studies allowed Veilleux et al. (2020) to understand and present to the audience the most significant aspects related to genomic and pharmacogenomic testing. Both patients’ and health care providers’ points of view were taken into consideration. Despite some limitations, the article is a useful resource, which can be utilized by those investigating genomics and pharmacogenomics at present, as well as by those who intend to broaden the research sphere in the future.
References
Borden, B. A., Galecki, P., Wellmann, R., Danahey, K., Lee, S. M., Patrick-Miller, L., Sorrentino, M. J., Nanda, R., Koyner, J. L., Polonsky, T. S., Stadler, W. M., Mulcahy, C., Kavitt, R. T., Ratain, M. J., Meltzer, D. O., & O’Donnell, P. H. (2019). Assessment of provider-perceived barriers to clinical use of pharmacogenomics during participation in an institutional implementation study. Pharmacogenetics and Genomics, 29(2), 31–38. Web.
Calzone, K. A., Kirk, M., Tonkin, E., Badzek, L., Benjamin, C., & Middleton, A. (2018). The global landscape of nursing and genomics. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 50(3), 249–256. Web.
Caraballo, P. J., Hodge, L. S., Bielinski, S. J., Stewart, A. K., Farrugia, G., Schultz, C. G., Rohrer-Vitek, C. R., Olson, J. E., St. Sauver, J. L., Roger, V. L., Parkulo, M. A., Kullo, F. J., Nicholson, W. T., Elliott, M. A., Black, J. L., & Weinshilboum, R. M. (2016). Multidisciplinary model to implement pharmacogenomics at the point of care. Genetics in Medicine, 19(4), 421–429. Web.
Caudle, K. E., Dunnenberger, H. M., Freimuth, R. R., Peterson, J. F., Burlison, J. D., Whirl-Carrillo, M., Scott, S. A., Rehm, H. L., Williams, M. S., Klein, T. E., Relling, M. V., & Hoffman, J. M. (2016). Standardizing terms for clinical pharmacogenetic test results: Consensus terms from the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). Genetics in Medicine, 19(2), 215–223. Web.
Champlin, S., Mackert, M., Glowacki, E. M., & Donovan, E. E. (2016). Toward a better understanding of patient health literacy: A focus on the skills patients need to find health information. Qualitative Health Research, 27(8), 1160–1176. Web.
Dunnenberger, H. M., Biszewski, M., Bell, G. C., Sereika, A., May, H., Johnson, S. G., Hulick, P. J., & Khandekar, J. (2016). Implementation of a multidisciplinary pharmacogenomics clinic in a community health system. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 73(23), 1956–1966. Web.
Dodson, C. (2018). Oncology nurses’ knowledge of pharmacogenomics before and after implementation of an education module. Oncology Nursing Forum, 45(5), 575–580. Web.
Haga, S. B., Mills, R., & Moaddeb, J. (2016). Evaluation of a pharmacogenetic educational toolkit for community pharmacists. Pharmacogenomics, 17(14), 1491–1502. Web.
Qualitative Health Research. (n.d.). SAGE Journals. Web.
Veilleux, S., Bouffard, M., & Bouliane. M. B. (2020). Patient and health care provider needs and preferences in understanding pharmacogenomic and genomic testing: A meta-data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 30(1), 43–59. Web.