4.0 Article

Racial Differences in Attitudes toward Personallized Medicine

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH GENOMICS
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 1-6

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000354785

Keywords

Discrimination; Genes; Personalized medicine; Pharmacogenetics; Public attitudes; Racial differences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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% Cl = 3.04-18.32) and those self-reporting discrimination (OR = 2.87,95% Cl =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. (c) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available