Poster ID
P-39
Poster Title
Exploring patient and professional perspectives on implementing pharmacogenomic testing in UK primary care and estimating cost-effectiveness: A Mixed-Methods Study
Authors
Sadaf Qureshi -1,
Asam Latif - 2,
Dyfrig Hughes - 3,
Stephen Timmons - 4,
Antony Avery - 1
1. Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Medicine, Applied Health Research Building, University Park, University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
2. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Park, University of Nottingham, UK
3. Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, UK
4. Centre for Health Innovation, Leadership and Learning, Nottingham University Business School, UK
Asam Latif - 2,
Dyfrig Hughes - 3,
Stephen Timmons - 4,
Antony Avery - 1
1. Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Medicine, Applied Health Research Building, University Park, University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
2. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Park, University of Nottingham, UK
3. Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, UK
4. Centre for Health Innovation, Leadership and Learning, Nottingham University Business School, UK
Abstract
Background
Pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing can support personalised prescribing, improve medicines optimisation, and reduce adverse drug reactions. However, its use in UK primary care remains limited due to uncertainties around patient acceptability, professional readiness, workflow integration, and economic value. This mixed methods study explores the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on implementing PGx testing in the NHS primary care setting and evaluates the cost effectiveness of different HCP led delivery models.
Purpose
The study comprises three workstreams (WS):
WS1: Explore patient and HCP (GPs, pharmacists, nurses) views on barriers and enablers to PGx implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
WS2: Develop PGx guided clinical pathways based on WS1 findings, considering workflow changes and division of responsibilities.
WS3: Estimate the cost effectiveness of PGx testing delivered by GPs, pharmacists, or nurses.
Methods
WS1 involved semi structured interviews with 25 participants (patients n=6; GPs n=7; pharmacists n=6; nurses n=6). WS2 consisted of four HCP focus groups and three patient groups. Data were analysed thematically and mapped to CFIR. WS3 developed HCP led PGx pathways and tested cost effectiveness using a decision model informed by literature and qualitative insights.
Results
HCPs highlighted key concerns: limited education and training, need for simple guidelines, integration of PGx results into clinical decision support systems, funding requirements, and impacts on workload and time. Patients were generally open to PGx testing and viewed it as empowering, though many lacked understanding and wanted clearer information.
The decision model will determine whether GP , pharmacist , or nurse led PGx testing represents good value for NHS resources compared with usual care. Full results are currently being written up.
Conclusion
This study provides new evidence on patient and HCP perspectives regarding PGx testing in NHS primary care, an area with limited existing research. It also examines the feasibility and practicality of HCP led PGx pathways and generates economic evidence to inform future implementation into routine practice."
Pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing can support personalised prescribing, improve medicines optimisation, and reduce adverse drug reactions. However, its use in UK primary care remains limited due to uncertainties around patient acceptability, professional readiness, workflow integration, and economic value. This mixed methods study explores the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on implementing PGx testing in the NHS primary care setting and evaluates the cost effectiveness of different HCP led delivery models.
Purpose
The study comprises three workstreams (WS):
WS1: Explore patient and HCP (GPs, pharmacists, nurses) views on barriers and enablers to PGx implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
WS2: Develop PGx guided clinical pathways based on WS1 findings, considering workflow changes and division of responsibilities.
WS3: Estimate the cost effectiveness of PGx testing delivered by GPs, pharmacists, or nurses.
Methods
WS1 involved semi structured interviews with 25 participants (patients n=6; GPs n=7; pharmacists n=6; nurses n=6). WS2 consisted of four HCP focus groups and three patient groups. Data were analysed thematically and mapped to CFIR. WS3 developed HCP led PGx pathways and tested cost effectiveness using a decision model informed by literature and qualitative insights.
Results
HCPs highlighted key concerns: limited education and training, need for simple guidelines, integration of PGx results into clinical decision support systems, funding requirements, and impacts on workload and time. Patients were generally open to PGx testing and viewed it as empowering, though many lacked understanding and wanted clearer information.
The decision model will determine whether GP , pharmacist , or nurse led PGx testing represents good value for NHS resources compared with usual care. Full results are currently being written up.
Conclusion
This study provides new evidence on patient and HCP perspectives regarding PGx testing in NHS primary care, an area with limited existing research. It also examines the feasibility and practicality of HCP led PGx pathways and generates economic evidence to inform future implementation into routine practice."