Publications of Susanne B Haga    :chronological  alphabetical  combined listing:

%% Books   
@book{fds371013,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {The book of genes and genomes},
   Pages = {1-236},
   Year = {2022},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9780387709154},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-70916-1},
   Abstract = {The Book of Genes & Genomes presents a concise overview of
             the advances in genetics and genomics and provide the
             unfamiliar reader with a succinct description of many of the
             applications and implications of this field. Given the
             substantial investment in genetics and genomics over the
             past several decades and the many recent discoveries and
             developments, this book will help the reader begin to
             understand the importance of genetics and genomics to us
             all. This exciting new title includes information on how
             genetics and genomics has advanced our understanding of
             health and medicine, evolution, and biology, as well as how
             they are pushing the boundaries of ethics and social values.
             Assumes no prior knowledge on the part of the reader; Easy
             to understand writing style, enabling novices to read and
             speak the "language" of genes and genomes; Inclusion of
             case-studies that depict how genes and genomics have
             advanced understanding of health, medicine, evolution and
             biology, but juxtaposed to ethics and social values;
             Recommended reading offered to facilitate self study; Clear,
             up to date and affordable.},
   Doi = {10.1007/978-0-387-70916-1},
   Key = {fds371013}
}


%% Journal Articles   
@article{fds372790,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {The Critical Role of Pharmacists in the Clinical Delivery of
             Pharmacogenetics in the U.S.},
   Journal = {Pharmacy (Basel)},
   Volume = {11},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {144-144},
   Publisher = {MDPI AG},
   Year = {2023},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy11050144},
   Abstract = {Since the rebirth of pharmacogenomics (PGx) in the 1990s and
             2000s, with new discoveries of genetic variation underlying
             adverse drug response and new analytical technologies such
             as sequencing and microarrays, there has been much interest
             in the clinical application of PGx testing. The early
             involvement of pharmacists in clinical studies and the
             establishment of organizations to support the dissemination
             of information about PGx variants have naturally resulted in
             leaders in clinical implementation. This paper presents an
             overview of the evolving role of pharmacists, and discusses
             potential challenges and future paths, primarily focused in
             the U.S. Pharmacists have positioned themselves as leaders
             in clinical PGx testing, and will prepare the next
             generation to utilize PGx testing in their scope of
             practice.},
   Doi = {10.3390/pharmacy11050144},
   Key = {fds372790}
}

@article{fds369865,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Orlando, LA},
   Title = {Expanding Family Health History to Include Family Medication
             History.},
   Journal = {J Pers Med},
   Volume = {13},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {410},
   Publisher = {MDPI AG},
   Year = {2023},
   Month = {February},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm13030410},
   Abstract = {The collection of family health history (FHH) is an
             essential component of clinical practice and an important
             piece of data for patient risk assessment. However, family
             history data have generally been limited to diseases and
             have not included medication history. Family history was a
             key component of early pharmacogenetic research, confirming
             the role of genes in drug response. With the substantial
             number of known pharmacogenes, many affecting response to
             commonly prescribed medications, and the availability of
             clinical pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests and guidelines for
             interpretation, the collection of family medication history
             can inform testing decisions. This paper explores the roots
             of family-based pharmacogenetic studies to confirm the role
             of genes in these complex phenotypes and the benefits and
             challenges of collecting family medication history as part
             of family health history intake.},
   Doi = {10.3390/jpm13030410},
   Key = {fds369865}
}

@article{fds367816,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Chung, WK and Cubano, LA and Curry, TB and Empey, PE and Ginsburg, GS and Mangold, K and Miyake, CY and Prakash, SK and Ramsey,
             LB and Rowley, R and Rohrer Vitek and CR and Skaar, TC and Wynn, J and Manolio, TA},
   Title = {Development of Competency-based Online Genomic Medicine
             Training (COGENT).},
   Journal = {Per Med},
   Volume = {20},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {55-64},
   Year = {2023},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pme-2022-0101},
   Abstract = {The fields of genetics and genomics have greatly expanded
             across medicine through the development of new technologies
             that have revealed genetic contributions to a wide array of
             traits and diseases. Thus, the development of widely
             available educational resources for all healthcare providers
             is essential to ensure the timely and appropriate
             utilization of genetics and genomics patient care. In 2020,
             the National Human Genome Research Institute released a call
             for new proposals to develop accessible, sustainable online
             education for health providers. This paper describes the
             efforts of the six teams awarded to reach the goal of
             providing genetic and genomic training modules that are
             broadly available for busy clinicians.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pme-2022-0101},
   Key = {fds367816}
}

@article{fds367438,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Conference Report: NHGRI Research Training and Career
             Development Annual Meeting.},
   Journal = {Per Med},
   Year = {2022},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pme-2022-0095},
   Abstract = {Since 2016, the National Human Genome Research Institute of
             the US NIH has convened a meeting for their trainees.
             Training programs supported by the Institute are located
             throughout the US and provide funding to trainees from the
             undergraduate to the postdoctoral and junior faculty levels.
             The annual training meeting provides trainees with a novel
             opportunity to network, learn about a wide range of genomic
             research and gain skills and information to support their
             educational and career path in genomic research. The
             pandemic forced a transition to virtual meetings in 2020 and
             2021, but the 2022 meeting was convened as a hybrid format,
             with 383 attendees (59% in-person) in Durham, NC,
             US.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pme-2022-0095},
   Key = {fds367438}
}

@article{fds365707,
   Author = {Sperber, NR and Cragun, D and Roberts, MC and Bendz, LM and Ince, P and Gonzales, S and Haga, SB and Wu, RR and Petry, NJ and Ramsey, L and Uber,
             R},
   Title = {A Mixed-Methods Protocol to Identify Best Practices for
             Implementing Pharmacogenetic Testing in Clinical
             Settings.},
   Journal = {J Pers Med},
   Volume = {12},
   Number = {8},
   Year = {2022},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm12081313},
   Abstract = {Using a patient's genetic information to inform medication
             prescriptions can be clinically effective; however, the
             practice has not been widely implemented. Health systems
             need guidance on how to engage with providers to improve
             pharmacogenetic test utilization. Approaches from the field
             of implementation science may shed light on the complex
             factors affecting pharmacogenetic test use in real-world
             settings and areas to target to improve utilization. This
             paper presents an approach to studying the application of
             precision medicine that utilizes mixed qualitative and
             quantitative methods and implementation science frameworks
             to understand which factors or combinations consistently
             account for high versus low utilization of pharmocogenetic
             testing. This approach involves two phases: (1) collection
             of qualitative and quantitative data from providers-the
             cases-at four clinical institutions about their experiences
             with, and utilization of, pharmacogenetic testing to
             identify salient factors; and (2) analysis using a
             Configurational Comparative Method (CCM), using a
             mathematical algorithm to identify the minimally necessary
             and sufficient factors that distinguish providers who have
             higher utilization from those with low utilization.
             Advantages of this approach are that it can be used for
             small to moderate sample sizes, and it accounts for
             conditions found in real-world settings by demonstrating how
             they coincide to affect utilization.},
   Doi = {10.3390/jpm12081313},
   Key = {fds365707}
}

@article{fds362171,
   Author = {Bond, SJ and Parikh, N and Majmudar, S and Pin, S and Wang, C and Willis,
             L and Haga, SB},
   Title = {A Systematic Review of the Scope of Study of mHealth
             Interventions for Wellness and Related Challenges in
             Pediatric and Young Adult Populations.},
   Journal = {Adolesc Health Med Ther},
   Volume = {13},
   Pages = {23-38},
   Year = {2022},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AHMT.S342811},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND: Despite the purported advantages and potential
             efficacy of mHealth interventions to promote wellness in
             children, adolescents, and young adults, it is not clear
             what areas have been explored and the challenges reported in
             the biomedical literature. METHODS: We conducted a scoping
             review of publications between 2015 and 2019. RESULTS: We
             identified 54 papers that met our inclusion criteria.
             Studies were conducted in 21 countries and ranged in size
             from six to 9851 participants (median: 184). A total of 41%
             of studies enrolled adolescents only (n = 19). Of the seven
             types of mHealth interventions identified, apps were the
             most common intervention (59%; n = 32) evaluated and 44% of
             the studies evaluated two or more interventions. The most
             common topic of the studies reviewed was sexual and
             reproductive health (24%; n = 13). CONCLUSION: Most
             pediatric mHealth intervention studies are conducted in
             adolescents in large part, and sexual and reproductive
             health is the most commonly studied topic. With the easy and
             widespread accessibility to smartphone technology, the use
             of mobile apps for wellness interventions will likely
             continue to expand to other wellness topics.},
   Doi = {10.2147/AHMT.S342811},
   Key = {fds362171}
}

@article{fds359105,
   Author = {Sharma, Y and Cox, L and Kruger, L and Channamsetty, V and Haga,
             SB},
   Title = {Evaluating Primary Care Providers' Readiness for Delivering
             Genetic and Genomic Services to Underserved
             Populations.},
   Journal = {Public health genomics},
   Pages = {1-10},
   Year = {2021},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000518415},
   Abstract = {<h4>Introduction</h4>Increased genomics knowledge and access
             are advancing precision medicine and care delivery. With the
             translation of precision medicine across health care,
             genetics and genomics will play a greater role in primary
             care services. Health disparities and inadequate
             representation of racial and ethnically diverse groups
             threaten equitable access for those historically
             underserved. Health provider awareness, knowledge, and
             perceived importance are important determinants of the
             utilization of genomic applications.<h4>Methods</h4>We
             evaluated the readiness of primary care providers at a
             Federally Qualified Health Center, the Community Health
             Center, Inc. (CHCI) for delivering genetic and genomic
             testing to underserved populations. Online survey questions
             focused on providers' education and training in basic and
             clinical genetics, familiarity with current genetic tests,
             and needs for incorporating genetics and genomics into their
             current practice.<h4>Results</h4>Fifty of 77 (65%) primary
             care providers responded to the survey. Less than half
             received any training in basic or clinical genetics (40%),
             were familiar with specific genetic tests (36%), or felt
             confident with collecting family health history (44%), and
             70% believed patients would benefit from genetic
             testing.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Despite knowledge gaps,
             respondents recognized the value and need to bring these
             services to their patients, though would like more education
             on applying genetics and genomics into their practice, and
             more training about discussing risk factors associated with
             race or ethnicity. We provide further evidence of the need
             for educational resources and standardized guidelines for
             providers caring for underserved populations to optimize
             appropriate use and referral of genetic and genomic services
             and to reduce disparities in care.},
   Doi = {10.1159/000518415},
   Key = {fds359105}
}

@article{fds355090,
   Author = {Kantor, A and Haga, SB},
   Title = {The Potential Benefit of Expedited Development and Approval
             Programs in Precision Medicine.},
   Journal = {J Pers Med},
   Volume = {11},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {45},
   Year = {2021},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm11010045},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of the molecular causes
             of disease has begun to fulfill the promise of precision
             medicine with the development of targeted drugs,
             particularly for serious diseases with unmet needs. The drug
             approval regulatory process is a critical component to the
             continued growth of precision medicine drugs and devices. To
             facilitate the development and approval process of drugs for
             serious unmet needs, four expedited approval programs have
             been developed in the US: priority review, accelerated
             approval, fast track, and breakthrough therapy programs.
             METHODS: To determine if expedited approval programs are
             fulfilling the intended goals, we reviewed drug approvals by
             the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2011 and
             2017 for new molecular entities (NMEs). RESULTS: From 2011
             through 2017, the FDA approved 250 NMEs, ranging from 27
             approvals in 2013 to 46 in 2017. The NME approvals spanned
             22 different disease classes; almost one-third of all NMEs
             were for oncology treatments. CONCLUSIONS: As these pathways
             are utilized more, additional legislative changes may be
             needed to re-align incentives to promote continued
             development of innovative drugs for serious unmet needs in a
             safe, efficacious, and affordable manner.},
   Doi = {10.3390/jpm11010045},
   Key = {fds355090}
}

@article{fds359624,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Revisiting Secondary Information Related to Pharmacogenetic
             Testing.},
   Journal = {Frontiers in genetics},
   Volume = {12},
   Pages = {741395},
   Year = {2021},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.741395},
   Abstract = {Incidental or secondary findings have been a major part of
             the discussion of genomic medicine research and clinical
             applications. For pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, secondary
             findings arise due to the pleiotropic effects of
             pharmacogenes, often related to their endogenous functions.
             Unlike the guidelines that have been developed for whole
             exome or genome sequencing applications for management of
             secondary findings (though slightly different from PGx
             testing in that these refer to detection of variants in
             multiple genes, some with clinical significance and
             actionability), no corresponding guidelines have been
             developed for PGx clinical laboratories. Nonetheless,
             patient and provider education will remain key components of
             any PGx testing program to minimize adverse responses
             related to secondary findings.},
   Doi = {10.3389/fgene.2021.741395},
   Key = {fds359624}
}

@article{fds357928,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Mills, R and Moaddeb, J and Liu, Y and Voora,
             D},
   Title = {Delivery of Pharmacogenetic Testing with or without
             Medication Therapy Management in a Community Pharmacy
             Setting.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine},
   Volume = {14},
   Pages = {785-796},
   Year = {2021},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/pgpm.s314961},
   Abstract = {<h4>Objective</h4>The delivery of pharmacogenetic (PGx)
             testing has primarily been through clinical and hospital
             settings. We conducted a study to explore the feasibility of
             delivering PGx testing through community pharmacies, a
             less-studied setting.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cluster
             randomized trial of community pharmacies in North Carolina
             through two approaches: the provision of PGx testing alone
             or PGx testing with medication therapy management
             (MTM).<h4>Results</h4>A total of 150 patient participants
             were enrolled at 17 pharmacies and reported high
             satisfaction with their testing experience. Participants in
             the PGx plus MTM arm were more likely to recall a higher
             number of results (p=0.04) and more likely to clearly
             understand their choices for prevention or early detection
             of side effects (p=0.01). A medication or dose change based
             on the PGx results was made for 8.7% of participants.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Limited
             differences were observed in the provision of PGx testing as
             a standalone test or combined with MTM. A limited number of
             treatment changes were made based on PGx test results.
             Patient acceptance of PGx testing offered through the
             community pharmacy was very high, but the addition of MTM
             did not impact patient-reported perceptions about PGx
             testing or medication adherence.},
   Doi = {10.2147/pgpm.s314961},
   Key = {fds357928}
}

@article{fds357927,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Mills, R and Moaddeb, J and Liu, Y and Voora,
             D},
   Title = {Independent Community Pharmacists' Experience in Offering
             Pharmacogenetic Testing.},
   Journal = {Pharmgenomics Pers Med},
   Volume = {14},
   Pages = {877-886},
   Year = {2021},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PGPM.S314972},
   Abstract = {OBJECTIVE: This study assessed pharmacist experiences with
             delivering pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in independent
             community pharmacies. METHODS: We conducted a cluster
             randomized trial of independent community pharmacies in
             North Carolina randomized to provide either PGx testing as a
             standalone service or integrated into medication therapy
             management (MTM) services. Surveys and pharmacist data about
             the delivery of PGx testing were collected. Semi-structured
             interviews were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 36
             pharmacists participated in the study from 22 pharmacies.
             Sixteen pharmacists completed the pre-study and post-study
             surveys, and four pharmacists completed the semi-structured
             interviews. Thirty-one percent (11/36) of pharmacists had
             had some education in personalized medicine or PGx prior to
             the study. The only outcome that differed by study arm was
             the use of educational resources, with significantly higher
             utilization in the PGx testing only arm (p=0.007). Overall,
             compared to the pre-study assessment, pharmacists' knowledge
             about PGx significantly improved post-study (p=0.018). In
             the post-study survey, almost all pharmacists indicated that
             they felt qualified/able to provide PGx testing at their
             pharmacy. While 75% of pharmacists indicated that they may
             continue to provide PGx testing at their pharmacy after the
             study, the major concerns were lack of reimbursement for PGx
             counseling and consultation given the necessary time
             required. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated a positive
             experience with delivering PGx testing in the community
             pharmacy setting with little difference in pharmacists'
             experiences in providing PGx testing with or without MTM.
             Pharmacists were confident in their ability to provide PGx
             testing and were interested in continuing to offer testing,
             though sustained delivery may be challenged by lack of
             prescribing provider engagement and reimbursement.},
   Doi = {10.2147/PGPM.S314972},
   Key = {fds357927}
}

@article{fds352658,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Individualizing pharmacogenomic test results in the context
             of the microbiome.},
   Journal = {Per Med},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {459-468},
   Year = {2020},
   Month = {November},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pme-2020-0077},
   Abstract = {The field of pharmacogenetic testing was hailed as one of
             the early successful clinical applications arising from the
             personalized (or precision) medicine revolution. Substantial
             progress has been made to identify genes and genetic
             variants involved in drug response and establish clinical
             implementation programs. Yet, drug response is a complex
             trait and recent work has highlighted the key role played by
             the gut microbiome. As the study of the gut microbiome and
             pharmacogenetics converge, it may be possible to generate
             more precise predictions of drug response and improve health
             outcomes to treatments. Substantial effort will be needed to
             understand the dynamic impact of the microbiome and the
             interplay with host genetics and how to implement expanded
             pharmacogenetic testing.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pme-2020-0077},
   Key = {fds352658}
}

@article{fds351203,
   Author = {Brown, L and Eum, S and Haga, SB and Strawn, JR and Zierhut,
             H},
   Title = {Clinical Utilization of Pharmacogenetics in Psychiatry -
             Perspectives of Pharmacists, Genetic Counselors,
             Implementation Science, Clinicians, and Industry.},
   Journal = {Pharmacopsychiatry},
   Volume = {53},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {162-173},
   Year = {2020},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0975-9595},
   Abstract = {INTRODUCTION: The use of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing to
             guide decisions and improve patient outcomes has increased
             in recent years. PGx testing represents a decision support
             tool that may inform dosing, increase the likelihood of
             treatment response, and identify patients at risk for
             medication side effects. METHODS: This is a narrative review
             of utilization of PGx testing in psychiatry from
             stakeholders including, pharmacists, genetic counselors,
             implementation scientists, industry, and clinicians.
             RESULTS: While many limitations exist to streamline use of
             PGx testing in psychiatry, various stakeholders are crucial
             to clinical implementation. DISCUSSION: PGx testing can
             assist in medication selection and improve patient outcomes;
             however, more data are needed to understand when and how to
             incorporate PGx testing into psychiatric
             practice.},
   Doi = {10.1055/a-0975-9595},
   Key = {fds351203}
}

@article{fds349880,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Toward digital-based interventions for medication adherence
             and safety.},
   Journal = {Expert Opin Drug Saf},
   Volume = {19},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {735-746},
   Year = {2020},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2020.1764935},
   Abstract = {INTRODUCTION: Adherence to the prescribed use of medications
             is a major problem for many patients. Whether intentional or
             unintentional, the failure to take medications as prescribed
             results in an array of health problems, hospitalizations,
             and increased health expenditures. AREAS COVERED: The paper
             reviews the different types of interventions to promote the
             appropriate use of medications from provider-based to
             digital-based interventions. These interventions often
             combine passive and interactive approaches and may include
             bio-surveillance/monitoring. Many studies have evaluated
             these interventions in a variety of conditions and patient
             population, demonstrating mixed outcomes. EXPERT OPINION:
             The complexity of the underlying causes of poor medication
             adherence may warrant personalized interventions that
             combine passive/interactive and personal/digital options.
             Enriching patient trials may enable observation of larger
             effect sizes.},
   Doi = {10.1080/14740338.2020.1764935},
   Key = {fds349880}
}

@article{fds349322,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Orlando, LA},
   Title = {The enduring importance of family health history in the era
             of genomic medicine and risk assessment.},
   Journal = {Per Med},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {229-239},
   Year = {2020},
   Month = {May},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pme-2019-0091},
   Abstract = {Improving disease risk prediction and tailoring preventive
             interventions to patient risk factors is one of the primary
             goals of precision medicine. Family health history is the
             traditional approach to quickly gather genetic and
             environmental data relevant to the patient. While the
             utility of family health history is well-documented, its
             utilization is variable, in part due to lack of patient and
             provider knowledge and incomplete or inaccurate data. With
             the advances and reduced costs of sequencing technologies,
             comprehensive sequencing tests can be performed as a risk
             assessment tool. We provide an overview of each of these
             risk assessment approaches, the benefits and limitations and
             implementation challenges.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pme-2019-0091},
   Key = {fds349322}
}

@article{fds349192,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Shaw, R and Kneifel, C and Bond, SJ and Ginsburg,
             GS},
   Title = {Promoting Wellness Through Mobile Health Technology in a
             College Student Population: Protocol Development and Pilot
             Study.},
   Journal = {JMIR Res Protoc},
   Volume = {9},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {e16474},
   Year = {2020},
   Month = {April},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/16474},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND: The health and well-being of college students
             has garnered widespread attention and concern in recent
             years. At the same time, the expansion and evaluation of
             digital technologies has grown in recent years for different
             target populations. OBJECTIVE: This protocol aims to
             describe a pilot feasibility study on wearables to assess
             student interest and to gather baseline data from college
             freshmen, for the academic year 2019 to 2020. METHODS: All
             full-time college freshmen residing in a single residence
             hall were eligible to participate. Study invitations were
             sent by post and email 5 weeks prior to move-in. Web-based
             enrollment and in-person attendance at study orientation
             sessions were mandatory. We provided the incoming freshmen
             with a wearable and study app. Wearable data and weekly
             survey data will be collected through the study app and
             analyzed. We have collected demographic, enrollment, and
             attrition data and the number and type of support requests
             from students. RESULTS: The planning phase of the WearDuke
             initiative was completed in 2018 to 2019, and the pilot
             study was launched in July 2019. Of the 175 students
             invited, 120 enrolled and 114 started the study; 107
             students remained active participants till the end of the
             fall semester. For Apple Watch participants (the majority of
             study population), weekly survey completion rates ranged
             from 70% (74/106) to 96% (95/99). CONCLUSIONS: Halfway
             through the pilot, we noticed that the initiative has been
             received positively by the students with minimal attrition.
             The short- and long-term benefits may be substantial for
             students, the campus, the utilization of health services,
             and long-term health. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT
             IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16474.},
   Doi = {10.2196/16474},
   Key = {fds349192}
}

@article{fds357886,
   Author = {Phillips, K and Haga, S},
   Title = {Precision Medicine in Primary Care: Bespoke. Genetic and
             Genomic. And Maybe Not Ready},
   Journal = {Managed Care},
   Volume = {28},
   Number = {12},
   Pages = {30-33},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {December},
   Abstract = {With genomic sequencing on the rise and patients having more
             say about their treatment, two hot areas—predictive
             genetic testing and pharmacogenomics— promise to extend
             “personalized” medicine beyond cancer care. But will
             this precision improve outcomes and pay for
             itself?},
   Key = {fds357886}
}

@article{fds346417,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Managing Increased Accessibility to Pharmacogenomic
             Data.},
   Journal = {Clin Pharmacol Ther},
   Volume = {106},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {922-924},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {November},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1602},
   Doi = {10.1002/cpt.1602},
   Key = {fds346417}
}

@article{fds365961,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Shaw, R and Kneifel, C and Bond, SJ and Ginsburg,
             GS},
   Title = {Promoting Wellness Through Mobile Health Technology in a
             College Student Population: Protocol Development and Pilot
             Study (Preprint)},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/preprints.16474},
   Abstract = {<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> <p>The health and well-being
             of college students has garnered widespread attention and
             concern in recent years. At the same time, the expansion and
             evaluation of digital technologies has grown in recent years
             for different target populations.</p> </sec> <sec>
             <title>OBJECTIVE</title> <p>This protocol aims to describe a
             pilot feasibility study on wearables to assess student
             interest and to gather baseline data from college freshmen,
             for the academic year 2019 to 2020.</p> </sec> <sec>
             <title>METHODS</title> <p>All full-time college freshmen
             residing in a single residence hall were eligible to
             participate. Study invitations were sent by post and email 5
             weeks prior to move-in. Web-based enrollment and in-person
             attendance at study orientation sessions were mandatory. We
             provided the incoming freshmen with a wearable and study
             app. Wearable data and weekly survey data will be collected
             through the study app and analyzed. We have collected
             demographic, enrollment, and attrition data and the number
             and type of support requests from students.</p> </sec> <sec>
             <title>RESULTS</title> <p>The planning phase of the WearDuke
             initiative was completed in 2018 to 2019, and the pilot
             study was launched in July 2019. Of the 175 students
             invited, 120 enrolled and 114 started the study; 107
             students remained active participants till the end of the
             fall semester. For Apple Watch participants (the majority of
             study population), weekly survey completion rates ranged
             from 70% (74/106) to 96% (95/99).</p> </sec> <sec>
             <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> <p>Halfway through the pilot, we
             noticed that the initiative has been received positively by
             the students with minimal attrition. The short- and
             long-term benefits may be substantial for students, the
             campus, the utilization of health services, and long-term
             health.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED
             REPORT</title> <p>DERR1-10.2196/16474</p>
             </sec>},
   Doi = {10.2196/preprints.16474},
   Key = {fds365961}
}

@article{fds346576,
   Author = {Weitzel, KW and Duong, BQ and Arwood, MJ and Owusu-Obeng, A and Abul-Husn, NS and Bernhardt, BA and Decker, B and Denny, JC and Dietrich, E and Gums, J and Madden, EB and Pollin, TI and Wu, RR and Haga,
             SB and Horowitz, CR},
   Title = {A stepwise approach to implementing pharmacogenetic testing
             in the primary care setting.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {20},
   Number = {15},
   Pages = {1103-1112},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2019-0053},
   Abstract = {Pharmacogenetic testing can help identify primary care
             patients at increased risk for medication toxicity, poor
             response or treatment failure and inform drug therapy. While
             testing availability is increasing, providers are unprepared
             to routinely use pharmacogenetic testing for clinical
             decision-making. Practice-based resources are needed to
             overcome implementation barriers for pharmacogenetic testing
             in primary care.The NHGRI's IGNITE I Network (Implementing
             GeNomics In pracTicE; www.ignite-genomics.org) explored
             practice models, challenges and implementation barriers for
             clinical pharmacogenomics. Based on these experiences, we
             present a stepwise approach pharmacogenetic testing in
             primary care: patient identification; pharmacogenetic test
             ordering; interpretation and application of test results,
             and patient education. We present clinical factors to
             consider, test-ordering processes and resources, and provide
             guidance to apply test results and counsel patients.
             Practice-based resources such as this stepwise approach to
             clinical decision-making are important resources to equip
             primary care providers to use pharmacogenetic
             testing.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2019-0053},
   Key = {fds346576}
}

@article{fds343608,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {First Responder to Genomic Information: A Guide for Primary
             Care Providers.},
   Journal = {Mol Diagn Ther},
   Volume = {23},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {459-466},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40291-019-00407-z},
   Abstract = {With rapid advances in genetics and genomics, the
             commercialization and access to new applications has become
             more widespread and omnipresent throughout biomedical
             research. Thus, increasingly, more patients will have
             personal genomic information they may share with primary
             care providers (PCPs) to better understand the clinical
             significance of the data. To be able to respond to patient
             inquiries about genomic data, variant interpretation,
             disease risk, and other issues, PCPs will need to be able to
             increase or refresh their awareness about genetics and
             genomics, and identify reliable resources to use or refer
             patients. While provider educational efforts have increased,
             with the rapid advances in the field, ongoing efforts will
             be needed to prepare PCPs to manage patient needs, integrate
             results into care, and refer as indicated.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s40291-019-00407-z},
   Key = {fds343608}
}

@article{fds345896,
   Author = {Villegas, C and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Access to Genetic Counselors in the Southern United
             States.},
   Journal = {J Pers Med},
   Volume = {9},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {E33},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm9030033},
   Abstract = {The expansion of genetic and genomic testing across medical
             specialties and the changing workforce demographics of
             certified genetic counselors (CGCs) have led to concerns of
             a workforce shortage. We assessed the number of genetic
             counselors working in the Southern United States-a rural and
             medically underserved region-using various online and
             professional resources. We identified 683 practicing genetic
             counselors across the Southern U.S. and 160 specializing in
             prenatal genetics. CGCs were concentrated in urban areas;
             counties with a CGC had a significantly higher proportion of
             minority residents and median household income than counties
             without a CGC. There is an average of 2.97 prenatal CGCs per
             5000 high-risk births in the South. Alternative delivery
             models are needed to increase access to counseling services
             in the Southern U.S., particularly for low income households
             and those of high risk pregnancies. Increased provider
             education and patient educational materials can help
             facilitate informed decision-making in prenatal settings as
             genetic technologies gain a stronger foothold and bring
             value to medical practice.},
   Doi = {10.3390/jpm9030033},
   Key = {fds345896}
}

@article{fds343638,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Liu, Y},
   Title = {Patient characteristics, experiences and perceived value of
             pharmacogenetic testing from a single testing
             laboratory.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {20},
   Number = {8},
   Pages = {581-587},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2019-0006},
   Abstract = {Aims: Patients' use of and experience with pharmacogenetic
             (PGx) testing may be impacted by several factors including
             patient and provider knowledge, health status, and perceived
             understanding of results. Materials & Methods: We
             conducted an online survey of individuals who had subscribed
             to a newsletter service offered by a US commercial PGx
             testing company, Genelex. Results: We find that about half
             of respondents that had PGx testing reviewed one or more of
             the lab's web-pages, 43% believed they understood the test
             results very well, but 40% did not know or could not recall
             whether their provider had changed their prescription based
             on the test result. Conclusions: There was limited use of
             the laboratory's online resources by respondents undergoing
             PGx testing. Increased awareness of the website may improve
             understanding of test results and facilitate discussions
             with providers about medication changes.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2019-0006},
   Key = {fds343638}
}

@article{fds344629,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Moaddeb, J},
   Title = {Pharmacogenomics courses in pharmacy school
             curricula.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {20},
   Number = {9},
   Pages = {625-630},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2019-0024},
   Abstract = {Aim: The appropriate use and integration of pharmacogenetic
             (PGx) testing will pivot on provider preparation and
             training. Pharmacists have been recognized as one of the key
             providers in the delivery of PGx testing and as such,
             professional organizations have recommended inclusion of PGx
             content in pharmacy curricula. Methods: We reviewed the
             curriculum of 132 US pharmacy schools for information about
             PGx courses. Results: A total of 70 core curriculum courses
             were identified. 55 (42%) pharmacy schools included at least
             one PGx course as part of the core curriculum, and ten (8%)
             schools that offered a PGx course elective. Conclusion:
             While many pharmacy schools have responded to the
             accreditation standards to include PGx, less than half of
             the schools have developed a standalone course.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2019-0024},
   Key = {fds344629}
}

@article{fds344594,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Kim, E and Myers, RA and Ginsburg, GS},
   Title = {Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and
             Experience with Personal Genetic Testing.},
   Journal = {J Pers Med},
   Volume = {9},
   Number = {2},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {May},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm9020029},
   Abstract = {Primary care providers (PCPs) will play an important role in
             precision medicine. However, their lack of training and
             knowledge about genetics and genomics may limit their
             ability to advise patients or interpret or utilize test
             results. We evaluated PCPs' awareness of the role of
             genetics/genomics in health, knowledge about key concepts in
             genomic medicine, perception/attitudes towards
             direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, and their level of
             confidence/comfort in discussing testing with patients prior
             to and after undergoing DTC testing through the 23andMe
             Health + Ancestry Service. A total of 130 PCPs completed the
             study. Sixty-three percent were board-certified in family
             practice, 32% graduated between 1991 and 2000, and 88% had
             heard of 23andMe prior to the study. Seventy-two percent
             decided to participate in the study to gain a better
             understanding about testing. At baseline, 23% of respondents
             indicated comfort discussing genetics as a risk factor for
             common diseases, increasing to 59% after undergoing personal
             genetic testing (PGT) (p < 0.01). In summary, we find that
             undergoing PGT augments physicians' confidence, comfort, and
             interest in DTC testing.},
   Doi = {10.3390/jpm9020029},
   Key = {fds344594}
}

@article{fds342286,
   Author = {Wu, RR and Myers, RA and Buchanan, AH and Dimmock, D and Fulda, KG and Haller, IV and Haga, SB and Harry, ML and McCarty, C and Neuner, J and Rakhra-Burris, T and Sperber, N and Voils, CI and Ginsburg, GS and Orlando, LA},
   Title = {Effect of Sociodemographic Factors on Uptake of a
             Patient-Facing Information Technology Family Health History
             Risk Assessment Platform.},
   Journal = {Appl Clin Inform},
   Volume = {10},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {180-188},
   Year = {2019},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1679926},
   Abstract = {OBJECTIVE: Investigate sociodemographic differences in the
             use of a patient-facing family health history (FHH)-based
             risk assessment platform. METHODS: In this large multisite
             trial with a diverse patient population, we evaluated the
             relationship between sociodemographic factors and FHH health
             risk assessment uptake using an information technology (IT)
             platform. The entire study was administered online,
             including consent, baseline survey, and risk assessment
             completion. We used multivariate logistic regression to
             model effect of sociodemographic factors on study
             progression. Quality of FHH data entered as defined as
             relatives: (1) with age of onset reported on relevant
             conditions; (2) if deceased, with cause of death and (3) age
             of death reported; and (4) percentage of relatives with
             medical history marked as unknown was analyzed using grouped
             logistic fixed effect regression. RESULTS: A total of 2,514
             participants consented with a mean age of 57 and 10.4%
             minority. Multivariate modeling showed that progression
             through study stages was more likely for younger
             (p-value = 0.005), more educated (p-value = 0.004),
             non-Asian (p-value = 0.009), and female
             (p-value = 0.005) participants. Those with lower health
             literacy or information-seeking confidence were also less
             likely to complete the study. Most significant drop-out
             occurred during the risk assessment completion phase.
             Overall, quality of FHH data entered was high with
             condition's age of onset reported 87.85%, relative's cause
             of death 85.55% and age of death 93.76%, and relative's
             medical history marked as unknown 19.75% of the time.
             CONCLUSION: A demographically diverse population was able to
             complete an IT-based risk assessment but there were
             differences in attrition by sociodemographic factors. More
             attention should be given to ensure end-user functionality
             of health IT and leverage electronic medical records to
             lessen patient burden.},
   Doi = {10.1055/s-0039-1679926},
   Key = {fds342286}
}

@article{fds346882,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Pharmacogenomic Testing In Pediatrics: Navigating The
             Ethical, Social, And Legal Challenges.},
   Journal = {Pharmgenomics Pers Med},
   Volume = {12},
   Pages = {273-285},
   Year = {2019},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PGPM.S179172},
   Abstract = {For the past several years, the implementation of
             pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing has become widespread in
             several centers and clinical practice settings. PGx testing
             may be ordered at the point-of-care when treatment is needed
             or in advance of treatment for future use. The potential
             benefits of PGx testing are not limited to adult patients,
             as children are increasingly using medications more often
             and at earlier ages. This review provides some background on
             the use of PGx testing in children as well as mothers
             (prenatally and post-natally) and discusses the challenges,
             benefits, and the ethical, legal, and social implications of
             providing PGx testing to children.},
   Doi = {10.2147/PGPM.S179172},
   Key = {fds346882}
}

@article{fds346883,
   Author = {Madhavan, S and Bullis, E and Myers, R and Zhou, CJ and Cai, EM and Sharma,
             A and Bhatia, S and Orlando, LA and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Awareness of family health history in a predominantly young
             adult population.},
   Journal = {PLoS One},
   Volume = {14},
   Number = {10},
   Pages = {e0224283},
   Year = {2019},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224283},
   Abstract = {Family health history (FHH) is a key predictor of health
             risk and is universally important in preventive care.
             However, patients may not be aware of the importance of FHH,
             and thus, may fail to accurately or completely share FHH
             with health providers, thereby limiting its utility. In this
             study, we conducted an online survey of 294 young adults and
             employees based at a US university setting regarding their
             knowledge, sharing behaviors, and perceived importance of
             FHH, and use of electronic clinical tools to document and
             update FHH. We also evaluated two educational interventions
             (written and video) to promote knowledge about FHH and its
             importance to health. We found that 93% of respondents were
             highly aware of their FHH, though only 39% reported
             collecting it and 4% using an online FHH tool. Seventy-three
             percent of respondents, particularly women, had shared FHH
             with their doctor when prompted, and fewer had shared it
             with family members. Participants in the video group were
             significantly more likely to understand the benefits of FHH
             than those in the written group (p = 0.02). In summary,
             educational resources, either video or written, will be
             helpful to promote FHH collection, sharing, and use of
             online FHH tools.},
   Doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0224283},
   Key = {fds346883}
}

@article{fds339653,
   Author = {Peyser, B and Perry, EP and Singh, K and Gill, RD and Mehan, MR and Haga,
             SB and Musty, MD and Milazzo, NA and Savard, D and Li, Y-J and Trujilio, G and Voora, D},
   Title = {Effects of Delivering SLCO1B1 Pharmacogenetic Information in
             Randomized Trial and Observational Settings.},
   Journal = {Circ Genom Precis Med},
   Volume = {11},
   Number = {9},
   Pages = {e002228},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGEN.118.002228},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND: Outcomes of tailoring statin-type based on
             solute carrier organic anion transporterfamily member 1B1 (
             SLCO1B1)pharmacogenetic toxicity information on patient,
             provider, and pharmacological outcomes are unknown. METHODS:
             The trial randomized 159 patients not taking statins because
             of prior statin myalgia 1:1 to receiving SLCO1B1 GIST
             (Genotype Informed Statin Therapy) versus usual care (UC)
             and followed for up to 8 months. The UC arm received their
             SLCO1B1 results post-trial. The primary outcome was statin
             adherence using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale,
             which was assessed in those patients who reinitiated
             statins. Secondary outcomes assessed in all participants
             included statin reinitiation and LDLc (low-density
             lipoprotein cholesterol), within and post-trial. Using
             commercial laboratory data, serial LDLc were compared
             between 1907 patients receiving SLCO1B1 testing and
             propensity-matched, untested controls. RESULTS: Trial
             participants were 25% SLCO1B1*5 carriers. Statin adherence
             was similar between arms (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale
             in GIST versus UC, 6.8±1.5 versus 6.9±1.6, P=0.96). GIST
             led to more new statin prescriptions (55.4% versus 38.0%,
             P=0.04) and lower LDLc at 3 months (131.9±42.0 versus
             144.4±43.0 mg/dL; P=0.048) with similar magnitude at 8
             months (128.6±37.9 versus 141.0±44.4; P=0.12). SLCO1B1*5
             carriers exhibited a greater drop in LDLc with GIST versus
             UC (interaction P=0.048). Post-trial, LDLc decreased in UC
             participants who crossed over to GIST compared with those
             allocated to GIST (-14.9±37.8 versus +9.0±37.3 mg/dL,
             P=0.03). Patients tested for SLCO1B1 though a commercial
             laboratory had a greater LDLc decrease ( P=0.04) compared
             with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of SLCO1B1
             pharmacogenetic testing that addresses statin myalgia
             improved statin reinitiation and LDLc but did not improve
             self-reported statin adherence. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:
             URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier:
             NCT01894230.},
   Doi = {10.1161/CIRCGEN.118.002228},
   Key = {fds339653}
}

@article{fds336606,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Kantor, A},
   Title = {Horizon Scan Of Clinical Laboratories Offering
             Pharmacogenetic Testing.},
   Journal = {Health Aff (Millwood)},
   Volume = {37},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {717-723},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {May},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1564},
   Abstract = {Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing involves the analysis of genes
             known to affect response to medications. The field has been
             projected as a leading application of personalized or
             precision medicine, but the use of PGx tests has been
             stymied, in part, by the lack of clinical evidence of
             utility and reported low provider awareness. Another factor
             is the availability of testing. The range and types of PGx
             tests available have not been assessed to date. In the
             period September 2017-January 2018 we analyzed the numbers
             and types of PGx tests offered by clinical testing
             laboratories in the US. Of the 111 such labs that we
             identified, we confirmed that 76 offered PGx testing
             services. Of these, 31 offered only tests for single genes;
             30 offered only tests for multiple genes; and 15 offered
             both types of tests. Collectively, 45 laboratories offered
             114 multigene panel tests covering 295 genes. The majority
             of these tests did not have any clinical guidelines. PGx
             tests vary in type and makeup, which presents challenges in
             appropriate test evaluation and selection for providers,
             insurers, health systems, and patients alike.},
   Doi = {10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1564},
   Key = {fds336606}
}

@article{fds338375,
   Author = {Mills, R and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Qualitative user evaluation of a revised pharmacogenetic
             educational toolkit.},
   Journal = {Pharmgenomics Pers Med},
   Volume = {11},
   Pages = {139-146},
   Year = {2018},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PGPM.S169648},
   Abstract = {INTRODUCTION: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing is a leading
             application for personalized and precision medicine;
             however, there are barriers, including limited provider and
             patient understanding, which affect its uptake. There is a
             need for tools that can enhance the patient and provider
             experience with testing and promoting the shared and
             informed decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this
             study, we sought to gather additional feedback on a PGx
             toolkit comprised of four educational tools that had been
             previously evaluated through an online survey by
             pharmacists. Specifically, we conducted semi-structured
             interviews with pharmacists and members of the public
             regarding their understanding and utility of the toolkit and
             its individual components. RESULTS: Participants found three
             of the four toolkit components, a test information sheet,
             flipbook, and results sheet, to be useful and important. The
             fourth component, results card, was viewed less favorably.
             Participants differed in their preference for medical jargon
             and detailed results nomenclature (namely star * alleles).
             CONCLUSION: User input during the development of educational
             materials is essential for optimizing utilization,
             effectiveness, and comprehension.},
   Doi = {10.2147/PGPM.S169648},
   Key = {fds338375}
}

@article{fds333809,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Friedman, B and Richard, G},
   Title = {Considering the Benefits and Risks of Research Participants'
             Access to Sequence Data.},
   Journal = {Genet Test Mol Biomarkers},
   Volume = {21},
   Number = {12},
   Pages = {717-721},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {December},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2017.0143},
   Abstract = {The use of sequencing technologies has greatly expanded in
             both research and clinical settings. The generation of
             voluminous datasets has raised several issues regarding data
             sharing and access. Current regulations require clinical
             laboratories and some research laboratories to provide
             access to test data, including sequencing data, directly to
             patients upon request. There is some controversy over
             whether this access right may be somewhat broader,
             encompassing research data as well-a question beyond the
             scope of this article. It is clear that in the research
             setting, deposition of sequencing data into public or
             private databases often occurs, although little information
             exists about the return of data files to research
             participants (in contrast to the extensive deliberations
             regarding return of results). Thus, further consideration of
             the issue of access to data files is warranted as well as
             more effort to understand both patients' and research
             participants' use of the data.},
   Doi = {10.1089/gtmb.2017.0143},
   Key = {fds333809}
}

@article{fds333810,
   Author = {Huddleston, KL and Klein, E and Fuller, A and Jo, G and Lawrence, G and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Introducing personalized health for the family: the
             experience of a single hospital system.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {18},
   Number = {17},
   Pages = {1589-1594},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {November},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2017-0112},
   Abstract = {Pharmacogenetic testing is leading the personalized health
             movement, gradually being implemented in a variety of
             healthcare settings. To inform the efforts of other hospital
             and clinical practices implementing personalized health or
             medicine applications, we describe the implementation of a
             newborn pharmacogenetic testing program at Inova Health
             System (VA, USA). In particular, we describe the efforts to
             gather patient feedback through focus groups, the training
             and program staff, the pilot program and our experiences to
             date. In our experience, a multidisciplinary team was
             essential to address the myriad facets of program
             development and implementation as well as an in-person
             approach to introduce testing and patient
             education.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2017-0112},
   Key = {fds333810}
}

@article{fds328444,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Informational Quest.},
   Journal = {Circ Cardiovasc Genet},
   Volume = {10},
   Number = {4},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.117.001860},
   Doi = {10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.117.001860},
   Key = {fds328444}
}

@article{fds328285,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Educating patients and providers through comprehensive
             pharmacogenetic test reports.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {18},
   Number = {11},
   Pages = {1047-1050},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2017-0088},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2017-0088},
   Key = {fds328285}
}

@article{fds326495,
   Author = {Mills, R and Ensinger, M and Callanan, N and Haga,
             SB},
   Title = {Development and Initial Assessment of a Patient Education
             Video about Pharmacogenetics.},
   Journal = {J Pers Med},
   Volume = {7},
   Number = {2},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {May},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm7020004},
   Abstract = {As few patient-friendly resources about pharmacogenetics are
             currently available, we aimed to create and assess a patient
             educational video on pharmacogenetic testing. A primary
             literature and resources review was conducted to inform the
             content and the format of the video. The educational video
             was then created using a commercially available animation
             program and pilot tested in focus groups of the general
             public and by an online survey of pharmacists. Emerging
             themes from the focus groups and survey indicate a desire
             for appropriate risk contextualization and specific examples
             when pharmacogenetic testing may be beneficial. Focus group
             participants also expressed a preference for a video with
             live action, and more text to reinforce concepts.
             Pharmacists generally felt that the video was understandable
             for patients and relevant for decision-making regarding
             testing. Using this initial feedback and the identification
             of important concepts to include in pharmacogenetics
             educational tools, we plan to revise the video, perform
             additional evaluations, and publish the video for public use
             in the future.},
   Doi = {10.3390/jpm7020004},
   Key = {fds326495}
}

@article{fds325347,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Mills, R and Moaddeb, J and Allen LaPointe and N and Cho, A and Ginsburg, GS},
   Title = {Primary care providers' use of pharmacist support for
             delivery of pharmacogenetic testing.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {18},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {359-367},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2016-0177},
   Abstract = {AIM: To investigate provider utilization of pharmacist
             support in the delivery of pharmacogenetic testing in a
             primary care setting. METHODS: Two primary care clinics
             within Duke University Health System participated in the
             study between December 2012 and July 2013. One clinic was
             provided with an in-house pharmacist and the second clinic
             had an on-call pharmacist. RESULTS: Providers in the
             in-house pharmacist arm consulted with the pharmacist for 13
             of 15 cases, or about one of every four patients tested
             compared with one of every 7.5 patients in the on-call
             pharmacist arm. A total of 63 tests were ordered, 48 by
             providers in the pharmacist-in-house arm. CONCLUSION: These
             findings suggest that the availability of an in-house
             pharmacist increases the likelihood of pharmacogenetic test
             utilization.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2016-0177},
   Key = {fds325347}
}

@article{fds323847,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Update: looking beyond the 100,000 Genome
             Project.},
   Journal = {Per Med},
   Volume = {14},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {85-87},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pme-2016-0101},
   Doi = {10.2217/pme-2016-0101},
   Key = {fds323847}
}

@article{fds325348,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Moaddeb, J and Mills, R and Voora, D},
   Title = {Assessing feasibility of delivering pharmacogenetic testing
             in a community pharmacy setting.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {18},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {327-335},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2016-0175},
   Abstract = {AIM: To describe the rationale and design of a study
             evaluating the delivery of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in
             community pharmacies. Study rationale: Pharmacists have
             expressed interest in offering PGx testing; however, their
             lack of knowledge and experience, patients' acceptance and
             feasibility are unknown in this setting. STUDY DESIGN:
             Through a cluster randomized trial, we will assess
             pharmacist and patient experiences with delivery of PGx
             testing as a standalone service or integrated into
             medication therapy management services. Anticipated results:
             We anticipate that PGx testing can be delivered in a
             community pharmacy setting and accepted and valued by
             patients. CONCLUSION: This study is expected to provide
             valuable evidence about the real-world feasibility and
             acceptance of a community pharmacist-delivered approach of
             PGx testing.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2016-0175},
   Key = {fds325348}
}

@article{fds339308,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Integrating pharmacogenetic testing into primary
             care.},
   Journal = {Expert Rev Precis Med Drug Dev},
   Volume = {2},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {327-336},
   Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
   Year = {2017},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23808993.2017.1398046},
   Abstract = {INTRODUCTION: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing has greatly
             expanded due to enhanced understanding of the role of genes
             in drug response and advances in DNA-based testing
             technology development. As many primary care visits result
             in a prescription, the use of PGx testing may be
             particularly beneficial in this setting. However,
             integration of PGx testing may be limited as no uniform
             approach to delivery of tests has been established and
             providers are ill-prepared to integrate PGx testing into
             routine care. AREAS COVERED: In this paper, the readiness of
             primary care practitioners are reviewed as well as
             strategies to address these barriers based on published
             research and ongoing activities on education and
             implementation of PGx testing. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Widespread
             integration of PGx testing will warrant continued education
             and point-of-care decisional support. Primary care providers
             may also benefit from consultation services or team-based
             care with laboratory medicine specialists, pharmacists, and
             genetic counselors.},
   Doi = {10.1080/23808993.2017.1398046},
   Key = {fds339308}
}

@article{fds328309,
   Author = {Singh, K and Peyser, B and Trujillo, G and Milazzo, N and Savard, D and Haga, SB and Musty, M and Voora, D},
   Title = {Rationale and design of the SLCO1B1 genotype guided statin
             therapy trial.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {17},
   Pages = {1873-1880},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {November},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2016-0065},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2016-0065},
   Key = {fds328309}
}

@article{fds322053,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Mills, R and Moaddeb, J and Allen Lapointe and N and Cho, A and Ginsburg, GS},
   Title = {Patient experiences with pharmacogenetic testing in a
             primary care setting.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {15},
   Pages = {1629-1636},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2016-0077},
   Abstract = {AIM: To investigate patient experiences with pharmacogenetic
             (PGx) testing. METHODS: Patients were offered PGx testing
             through a study on pharmacist-assisted delivery of PGx
             testing and invited to complete pre- and post-testing
             surveys about their experience. RESULTS: Of 63 patients
             tested, 17 completed the baseline survey (27%). Interest in
             testing was mostly impacted by desire to inform selection of
             best treatment (n = 13). Seven of 12 patients that completed
             the follow-up survey indicated that their provider discussed
             the test result with them. Five patients understood their
             test result very or somewhat well. All would be likely to
             have PGx testing again. CONCLUSION: Patients perceived PGx
             testing to be useful, though more effort may be needed to
             improve patient-provider communication of test
             results.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2016-0077},
   Key = {fds322053}
}

@article{fds322577,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Mills, R and Moaddeb, J},
   Title = {Evaluation of a pharmacogenetic educational toolkit for
             community pharmacists.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {14},
   Pages = {1491-1502},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2016-0002},
   Abstract = {AIM: Over the past several decades, the roles and services
             of community pharmacists have expanded beyond traditional
             medical dispensation and compounding, and include health
             services such as vaccinations, and clinical testing and
             screening. Incorporating pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing into
             the menu of pharmacy services is logical and feasible;
             however, few pharmacists have experience with PGx testing,
             and few educational resources about PGx are available to
             support the uptake of PGx testing in community pharmacies.
             METHODS: We developed a toolkit of four resources to assist
             pharmacists to provide PGx testing. We conducted a survey of
             pharmacists in North Carolina to evaluate each component of
             the toolkit and the toolkit as a whole. RESULTS: A total of
             380 respondents completed the evaluation of one or more
             toolkit components (344 evaluated all four components and
             the overall toolkit). Most respondents (84%) have never
             ordered or used PGx test results. Though the usability of
             the toolkit overall was below average (65.1 on a range of
             0-100), individual components were perceived as useful and
             more than 75% of pharmacists reported that they would use
             the toolkit components when offering testing, with the
             result summary sheet receiving the highest score (4.01 out
             of 5). Open-text comments highlighted the need for more
             patient-friendly language and formatting. CONCLUSION: The
             majority of pharmacist respondents scored the components of
             the toolkit favorably. The next steps will be to revise and
             assess use of the toolkit in community pharmacy
             settings.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2016-0002},
   Key = {fds322577}
}

@article{fds322576,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Mills, R},
   Title = {A review of consent practices and perspectives for
             pharmacogenetic testing.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {14},
   Pages = {1595-1605},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2016-0039},
   Abstract = {AIM: We aimed to understand consent practices for
             pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing. METHODS: We conducted a
             literature review and analysis of consent forms from
             clinical laboratories offering PGx testing. RESULTS: Our
             review of the literature shows a lack of consensus about the
             need for and type of informed consent for PGx testing. We
             identified 35 companies offering PGx testing and were able
             to confirm consent practices for 22 of those. We found a
             range of variability in the consent practices regarding the
             consent approach and information disclosed. CONCLUSION:
             Variability in the consent practices among laboratories
             offering PGx testing mirrors the ambiguous practices and
             recommendations reported in the literature. Establishing a
             minimal set of information to be disclosed to patients may
             help address the disparities in consent practice.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2016-0039},
   Key = {fds322576}
}

@article{fds319073,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Challenges of development and implementation of point of
             care pharmacogenetic testing.},
   Journal = {Expert Rev Mol Diagn},
   Volume = {16},
   Number = {9},
   Pages = {949-960},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2016.1211934},
   Abstract = {INTRODUCTION: Just as technology was the underlying driver
             of the sequencing of the human genome and subsequent
             generation of volumes of genome sequence data from healthy
             and affected individuals, animal, plant, and microbial
             species alike, so too will technology revolutionize
             diagnostic testing. One area of intense interest is the use
             of genetic data to inform decisions regarding drug selection
             and drug dosing, known as pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, to
             improve likelihood of successful treatment outcomes with
             minimal risks. AREAS COVERED: This commentary will provide
             an overview of implementation research of PGx testing, the
             benefits of point-of-care (POC) testing and overview of POC
             testing platforms, available PGx tests, and barriers and
             facilitators to the development and integration of POC-PGx
             testing into clinical settings. Sources include the
             published literature, and databases from the Centers for
             Medicaid and Medicare Services, Food and Drug
             Administration. Expert commentary: The utilization of POC
             PGx testing may enable more routine test use, but the
             development and implementation of such tests will face some
             barriers before personalized medicine is available to every
             patient. In particular, provider training, availability of
             clinical decision supports, and connectivity will be key
             areas to facilitate routine use.},
   Doi = {10.1080/14737159.2016.1211934},
   Key = {fds319073}
}

@article{fds319074,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Solomon, BD},
   Title = {Considerations of pharmacogenetic testing in
             children.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {9},
   Pages = {975-977},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2016-0073},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs-2016-0073},
   Key = {fds319074}
}

@article{fds302547,
   Author = {Arora, S and Haverfield, E and Richard, G and Haga, SB and Mills,
             R},
   Title = {Clinical and Counseling Experiences of Early Adopters of
             Whole Exome Sequencing.},
   Journal = {J Genet Couns},
   Volume = {25},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {337-343},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {April},
   ISSN = {1059-7700},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-015-9876-y},
   Abstract = {Currently, there are limited data regarding the practice of
             genetic counseling for whole exome sequencing (WES).
             Improved understanding of how genetic counselors and other
             providers are educating, counseling, and communicating
             results may identify practice trends, and patient or
             provider needs. Between April 2013 and December 2014, we
             surveyed providers who ordered WES testing from GeneDx, a
             CLIA-certified laboratory. Forty-nine respondents completed
             the survey; 41 % of participants reported board
             certification in genetic counseling. Pre-test and post-test
             counseling was completed in all but one case each. Pre-test
             counseling lasted less than 1 h for 53 % of cases and 1 to 2
             h for 43 %. Topics discussed with all patients included
             consent for testing, and incidental findings; other topics
             were variable. In contrast to pre-test counseling, 59 %
             reported post-test counseling lasting 1 to 2 h and 33 % less
             than an hour; post-testing counseling was significantly
             longer in cases with a definitive diagnosis than those
             without (p = 0.0129). The survey findings indicate some
             variability regarding the amount of time spent on counseling
             and the topics discussed during pre-test counseling.
             Additional exploration, patient and provider educational
             resources, and potentially more specific guidelines
             regarding counseling for WES may be warranted.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10897-015-9876-y},
   Key = {fds302547}
}

@article{fds319075,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Moaddeb, J},
   Title = {Proposal for a pharmacogenetics certificate program for
             pharmacists.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {535-539},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {April},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs.16.11},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs.16.11},
   Key = {fds319075}
}

@article{fds319076,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Moaddeb, J and Mills, R and Patel, M and Kraus, W and Allen
             LaPointe, NM},
   Title = {Incorporation of pharmacogenetic testing into medication
             therapy management.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {16},
   Number = {17},
   Pages = {1931-1941},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {November},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs.15.124},
   Abstract = {AIM: To assess feasibility and patient satisfaction with a
             pharmacist-delivered medication therapy management (MTM)
             plus pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing service. METHODS: Thirty
             patients from a cardiology outpatient clinic were enrolled
             to attend two MTM sessions, undergo PGx testing and complete
             pre- and post-intervention surveys. Outcome measures
             included duration of MTM sessions, clinical application of
             test results, self-reported medication adherence, patient
             recall of results and perceived value of testing and MTM.
             RESULTS: Overall, patients were very satisfied with the MTM
             plus PGx testing service. About half of participants (47%)
             were able to accurately recall their PGx test results.
             Comparable to MTM without PGx testing, the first MTM session
             averaged 40 min and the follow-up MTM session averaged 15
             min. CONCLUSION: PGx testing incorporated into a clinical
             MTM service offered by pharmacists may be a feasible
             delivery model and is satisfactory to patients.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs.15.124},
   Key = {fds319076}
}

@article{fds302548,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Mills, R and Aucoin, J and Taekman, J},
   Title = {Interprofessional education for personalized medicine
             through technology-based learning.},
   Journal = {Per Med},
   Volume = {12},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {237-243},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {1741-0541},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pme.14.91},
   Abstract = {The delivery of personalized medicine utilizing genetic and
             genomic technologies is anticipated to involve many medical
             specialties. Interprofessional education will be key to the
             delivery of personalized medicine in order to reduce
             disjointed or uncoordinated clinical care, and optimize
             effective communication to promote patient understanding and
             engagement regarding the use of or need for these services.
             While several health professional organizations have
             endorsed and/or developed core competencies for genetics and
             genomics, the lack of interprofessional guidelines and
             training may hamper the delivery of coordinated personalized
             medicine. In this perspective, we consider the potential for
             interprofessional education and training using
             technology-based approaches, such as virtual simulation and
             gaming, compared with traditional educational
             approaches.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pme.14.91},
   Key = {fds302548}
}

@article{fds302551,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Allen LaPointe and NM and Moaddeb, J},
   Title = {Challenges to integrating pharmacogenetic testing into
             medication therapy management.},
   Journal = {J Manag Care Spec Pharm},
   Volume = {21},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {346-352},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {April},
   ISSN = {2376-0540},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2015.21.4.346},
   Abstract = {Some have proposed the integration of pharmacogenetic (PGx)
             testing into medication therapy management (MTM) to enable
             further refinement of treatments to reduce risk of adverse
             responses and improve efficacy. PGx testing involves the
             analysis of genetic variants associated with therapeutic or
             adverse response and may be useful in enhancing the ability
             to identify ineffective and/or harmful drugs or drug
             combinations. This "enhanced" MTM might also reduce patient
             concerns about side effects and increase confidence that the
             medication is effective, addressing 2 key factors that
             impact patient adherence: concern and necessity. However,
             the feasibility and effectiveness of the integration of PGx
             testing into MTM in clinical practice has not yet been
             determined. In this commentary, we consider some of the
             challenges to the integration and delivery of PGx testing in
             MTM services.},
   Doi = {10.18553/jmcp.2015.21.4.346},
   Key = {fds302551}
}

@article{fds302557,
   Author = {Mills, R and Powell, J and Barry, W and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Information-seeking and sharing behavior following genomic
             testing for diabetes risk.},
   Journal = {J Genet Couns},
   Volume = {24},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {58-66},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {February},
   ISSN = {1059-7700},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9736-1},
   Abstract = {As the practice of medicine has become more patient-driven,
             patients are increasingly seeking health information within
             and outside of their doctor's office. Patients looking for
             information and support are often turning to the Internet as
             well as family and friends. As part of a study to understand
             the impact of delivery method of genomic testing for type 2
             diabetes risk on comprehension and health-related behaviors,
             we assessed participants' information-seeking and sharing
             behaviors after receiving their results in-person with a
             genetic counselor or online through the testing company's
             website. We found that 32.6 % of participants sought
             information after receiving the genomic test results for
             T2DM; 80.8 % of those that did seek information turned to
             the Internet. Eighty-eight percent of participants reported
             that they shared their T2DM risk results, primarily with
             their spouse/partner (65 %) and other family members
             (57 %) and children (19 %); 14 % reported sharing results
             with their health provider. Sharing was significantly
             increased in those who received results in-person from the
             genetic counselor (p = 0.0001). Understanding patients'
             interests and needs for additional information after genomic
             testing and with whom they share details of their health is
             important as more information and clinical services are
             available and accessed outside the clinician's office.
             Genetic counselors' expertise and experience in creating
             educational materials and promoting sharing of genetic
             information can facilitate patient engagement and
             education.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10897-014-9736-1},
   Key = {fds302557}
}

@article{fds302556,
   Author = {Deverka, PA and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Comparative effectiveness research and demonstrating
             clinical utility for molecular diagnostic
             tests.},
   Journal = {Clin Chem},
   Volume = {61},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {142-144},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0009-9147},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2014.223412},
   Doi = {10.1373/clinchem.2014.223412},
   Key = {fds302556}
}

@article{fds302550,
   Author = {Gallagher, P and King, HA and Haga, SB and Orlando, LA and Joy, SV and Trujillo, GM and Scott, WM and Bembe, M and Creighton, DL and Cho, AH and Ginsburg, GS and Vorderstrasse, A},
   Title = {Patient beliefs and behaviors about genomic risk for type 2
             diabetes: implications for prevention.},
   Journal = {J Health Commun},
   Volume = {20},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {728-735},
   Year = {2015},
   ISSN = {1081-0730},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1018563},
   Abstract = {Type 2 diabetes is a major health burden in the United
             States, and population trends suggest this burden will
             increase. High interest in, and increased availability of,
             testing for genetic risk of type 2 diabetes presents a new
             opportunity for reducing type 2 diabetes risk for many
             patients; however, to date, there is little evidence that
             genetic testing positively affects type 2 diabetes
             prevention. Genetic information may not fit patients'
             illness representations, which may reduce the chances of
             risk-reducing behavior changes. The present study aimed to
             examine illness representations in a clinical sample who are
             at risk for type 2 diabetes and interested in genetic
             testing. The authors used the Common Sense Model to analyze
             survey responses of 409 patients with type 2 diabetes risk
             factors. Patients were interested in genetic testing for
             type 2 diabetes risk and believed in its importance. Most
             patients believed that genetic factors are important to
             developing type 2 diabetes (67%), that diet and exercise are
             effective in preventing type 2 diabetes (95%), and that
             lifestyle changes are more effective than drugs (86%).
             Belief in genetic causality was not related to poorer
             self-reported health behaviors. These results suggest that
             patients' interest in genetic testing for type 2 diabetes
             might produce a teachable moment that clinicians can use to
             counsel behavior change.},
   Doi = {10.1080/10810730.2015.1018563},
   Key = {fds302550}
}

@article{fds302552,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Mills, R},
   Title = {Nurses' communication of pharmacogenetic test results as
             part of discharge care.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {16},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {251-256},
   Year = {2015},
   ISSN = {1462-2416},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs.14.173},
   Abstract = {As pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing is becoming integrated into
             routine clinical procedures for admitted hospital patients,
             consideration is needed as to when test results will be
             communicated to patients and by whom. Given the implications
             of PGx test results for current and future care, we propose
             that if results are not promptly discussed with patients
             when testing is completed, results should be discussed with
             patients during discharge care when possible, included in
             the printed or electronic discharge summary and a copy of
             the results sent to their primary provider. Nurses play an
             important role in discharge planning and care by providing
             patients with the necessary information and support to
             transfer from the hospital setting to an outpatient setting
             or to return to home and work. To promote nurses' ability to
             fulfill the role of communicating PGx test results, revised
             curricula and interprofessional and clinical decision
             support are needed.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs.14.173},
   Key = {fds302552}
}

@article{fds319077,
   Author = {Moaddeb, J and Mills, R and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Community pharmacists' experience with pharmacogenetic
             testing.},
   Journal = {J Am Pharm Assoc (2003)},
   Volume = {55},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {587-594},
   Year = {2015},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1331/JAPhA.2015.15017},
   Abstract = {OBJECTIVE: Appendix 1 Statements of knowledge of correct
             medication use Appendix 2 Statements of self-efficacy of
             correct medication use Appendix 3 Statements of skills of
             correct medication use To characterize the experiences and
             feasibility of offering pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in a
             community pharmacy setting. DESIGN: Pharmacists were invited
             to complete a survey about PGx testing for each patient who
             was offered testing. If the patient consented, pharmacists
             were also asked to complete a follow-up survey about the
             process of returning PGx testing results to patients and
             follow-up with the prescribing provider. SETTING: Community
             pharmacies in North Carolina from August through November
             2014. PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacists at five community
             pharmacies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient consent for
             testing, time to introduce PGx testing initially and
             communicate results, interpretation of test results, and
             recommended medication changes. RESULTS: Of the 69 patients
             offered testing, 56 (81%) consented. Pre-test counseling
             typically lasted 1-5 minutes (81%), and most patients (55%)
             did not have any questions about the testing. Most
             pharmacists reported test results to patients by phone
             (84%), with discussions taking less than 1 minute (48%) or
             1-5 minutes (52%). Most pharmacists believed the patients
             understood their results either very well (54%) or somewhat
             well (41%). Pharmacists correctly interpreted 47 of the 53
             test results (89%). All of the incorrect interpretations
             were for patients with test results indicating a dosing or
             drug change (6/19; 32%). Pharmacists reported contacting the
             ordering physician for four patients to discuss results
             indicating a dosage or drug change. CONCLUSION: The
             provision of PGx services in a community pharmacy setting
             appears feasible, requiring little additional time from the
             pharmacist, and many patients seem interested in PGx
             testing. Additional training may be necessary to improve
             test result interpretation, as well as for communication
             with both patients and ordering physicians.},
   Doi = {10.1331/JAPhA.2015.15017},
   Key = {fds319077}
}

@article{fds319078,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Moaddeb, J},
   Title = {Potential use of auxiliary labels to promote patient
             awareness of pharmacogenetic testing.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {16},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {299-301},
   Year = {2015},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs.14.184},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs.14.184},
   Key = {fds319078}
}

@article{fds302553,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Allen LaPointe and NM and Moaddeb, J and Mills, R and Patel,
             M and Kraus, WE},
   Title = {Pilot study: incorporation of pharmacogenetic testing in
             medication therapy management services.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {15},
   Number = {14},
   Pages = {1729-1737},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {November},
   ISSN = {1462-2416},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs.14.118},
   Abstract = {Aim: To describe the rationale and design of a pilot study
             evaluating the integration of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing
             into pharmacist-delivered medication therapy management
             (MTM). Study rationale: Clinical delivery approaches of PGx
             testing involving pharmacists may overcome barriers of
             limited physician knowledge about and experience with
             testing. Study design: We will assess the addition of PGx
             testing to MTM services for cardiology patients taking three
             or more medications including simvastatin or clopidogrel. We
             will measure the impact of MTM plus PGx testing on drug/dose
             adjustment and clinical outcomes. Factors associated with
             delivery, such as time to prepare and conduct MTM and
             consult with physicians will be recorded. Additionally,
             patient interest and satisfaction will be measured.
             Anticipated results: We anticipate that PGx testing can be
             practically integrated into standard a MTM service,
             providing a viable delivery model for testing. Conclusion:
             Given the lack of evidence of an effective PGx delivery
             models, this study will provide preliminary evidence
             regarding a pharmacist-delivered approach.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs.14.118},
   Key = {fds302553}
}

@article{fds343466,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Mills, R and Bosworth, H},
   Title = {Striking a balance in communicating pharmacogenetic test
             results: promoting comprehension and minimizing adverse
             psychological and behavioral response.},
   Journal = {Patient Educ Couns},
   Volume = {97},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {10-15},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.06.007},
   Abstract = {OBJECTIVE: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing can provide
             information about a patient's likelihood to respond to a
             medication or experience an adverse event, and be used to
             inform medication selection and/or dosing. Promoting patient
             comprehension of PGx test results will be important to
             improving engagement and understanding of treatment
             decisions. METHODS: The discussion in this paper is based on
             our experiences and the literature on communication of
             genetic test results for disease risk and broad risk
             communication strategies. RESULTS: Clinical laboratory
             reports often describe PGx test results using standard
             terminology such as 'poor metabolizer' or 'ultra-rapid
             metabolizer.' While this type of terminology may promote
             patient recall with its simple, yet descriptive nature, it
             may be difficult for some patients to comprehend and/or
             cause adverse psychological or behavioral responses.
             CONCLUSION: The language used to communicate results and
             their significance to patients will be important to consider
             in order to minimize confusion and potential psychological
             consequences such as increased anxiety that can adversely
             impact medication-taking behaviors. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:
             Due to patients' unfamiliarity with PGx testing and the
             potential for confusion, adverse psychological effects, and
             decreased medication adherence, health providers need to be
             cognizant of the language used in discussing PGx test
             results with patients.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.pec.2014.06.007},
   Key = {fds343466}
}

@article{fds302554,
   Author = {Haga, SB and LaPointe, NMA and Cho, A and Reed, SD and Mills, R and Moaddeb, J and Ginsburg, GS},
   Title = {Pilot study of pharmacist-assisted delivery of
             pharmacogenetic testing in a primary care
             setting.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {15},
   Number = {13},
   Pages = {1677-1686},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {September},
   ISSN = {1462-2416},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs.14.109},
   Abstract = {AIM: To describe the rationale and design of a pilot program
             to implement and evaluate pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in a
             primary care setting. STUDY RATIONALE: Several factors have
             impeded the uptake of PGx testing, including lack of
             provider knowledge and challenges with operationalizing PGx
             testing in a clinical practice setting. STUDY DESIGN: We
             plan to compare two strategies for the implementation of PGx
             testing: a pharmacist-initiated testing arm compared with a
             physician-initiated PGx testing arm. Providers in both
             groups will be required to attend an introduction to PGx
             seminar. Anticipated results: We anticipate that providers
             in the pharmacist-initiated group will be more likely to
             order PGx testing than providers in the physician-initiated
             group. CONCLUSION: Overall, we aim to generate data that
             will inform an effective delivery model for PGx testing and
             to facilitate a seamless integration of PGx testing in
             primary care practices.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs.14.109},
   Key = {fds302554}
}

@article{fds302570,
   Author = {Mills, R and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Genomic counseling: next generation counseling.},
   Journal = {J Genet Couns},
   Volume = {23},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {689-692},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24026254},
   Abstract = {Personalized medicine continues to expand with the
             development and increasing use of genome-based testing.
             While these advances present new opportunities for diagnosis
             and risk assessment, they also present challenges to
             clinical delivery. Genetic counselors will play an important
             role in ushering in this new era of testing; however, it
             will warrant a shift from traditional genetic counseling to
             "genomic counseling." This shift will be marked by a move
             from reactive genetic testing for diagnosis of primarily
             single-gene diseases to proactive genome-based testing for
             multiple complex diseases for the purpose of disease
             prevention. It will also require discussion of risk
             information for a number of diseases, some of which may have
             low relative risks or weak associations, and thus, may not
             substantially impact clinical care. Additionally, genomic
             counselors will expand their roles, particularly in the area
             of health promotion to reduce disease risk. This additional
             role will require a style of counseling that is more
             directive than traditional counseling and require greater
             knowledge about risk reducing behaviors and disease
             screening.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10897-013-9641-z},
   Key = {fds302570}
}

@article{fds302561,
   Author = {Mills, R and Barry, W and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Public trust in genomic risk assessment for type 2 diabetes
             mellitus.},
   Journal = {J Genet Couns},
   Volume = {23},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {401-408},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {1059-7700},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9674-3},
   Abstract = {Patient trust in personal medical information is critical to
             increasing adherence to physician recommendations and
             medications. One of the anticipated benefits of learning of
             one's genomic risk for common diseases is the increased
             adoption of screening, preventive care and lifestyle
             changes. However, the equivocal results thus far reported of
             the positive impact of knowledge of genomic risk on behavior
             change may be due to lack of patients' trust in the results.
             As part of a clinical study to compare two methods of
             communication of genomic risk results for Type 2 diabetes
             mellitus (T2DM), we assessed patients' trust and preferred
             methods of delivery of genomic risk information. A total of
             300 participants recruited from the general public in
             Durham, NC were randomized to receive their genomic risk for
             T2DM in-person from a genetic counselor or online through
             the testing company's web-site. Participants completed a
             baseline survey and three follow-up surveys after receiving
             results. Overall, participants reported high levels of trust
             in the test results. Participants who received their results
             in-person from the genetic counselor were significantly more
             likely to trust their results than those who reviewed their
             results on-line (p = 0.005). There was not a
             statistically significant difference in levels of trust
             among participants with increased genetic risk, as compared
             to other those with decreased or same as population risk
             (p = 0.1154). In the event they undergo genomic risk
             testing again, 55 % of participants overall indicated they
             would prefer to receive their results online compared to
             28 % that would prefer to receive future results in-person.
             Of those participants preferring to receive results online,
             77 % indicated they would prefer to have the option to
             speak to someone if they had questions with the online
             results (compared to accessing results online without the
             option of professional consultation). This is the first
             study to assess satisfaction with genomic risk testing by
             the method of delivery of the test result. The higher rate
             of trust in results delivered in-person suggests that online
             access reports may not result in serious consideration of
             results and lack of adoption of recommended preventive
             recommendations.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10897-013-9674-3},
   Key = {fds302561}
}

@article{fds319080,
   Author = {Li, JH and Joy, SV and Haga, SB and Orlando, LA and Kraus, WE and Ginsburg,
             GS and Voora, D},
   Title = {Genetically guided statin therapy on statin perceptions,
             adherence, and cholesterol lowering: a pilot implementation
             study in primary care patients.},
   Journal = {J Pers Med},
   Volume = {4},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {147-162},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm4020147},
   Abstract = {Statin adherence is often limited by side effects. The
             SLCO1B1*5 variant is a risk factor for statin side effects
             and exhibits statin-specific effects: highest with
             simvastatin/atorvastatin and lowest with
             pravastatin/rosuvastatin. The effects of SLCO1B1*5 genotype
             guided statin therapy (GGST) are unknown. Primary care
             patients (n = 58) who were nonadherent to statins and their
             providers received SLCO1B1*5 genotyping and guided
             recommendations via the electronic medical record (EMR). The
             primary outcome was the change in Beliefs about Medications
             Questionnaire, which measured patients' perceived needs for
             statins and concerns about adverse effects, measured before
             and after SLCO1B1*5 results. Concurrent controls (n = 59)
             were identified through the EMR to compare secondary
             outcomes: new statin prescriptions, statin utilization, and
             change in LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c). GGST patients had trends
             (p = 0.2) towards improved statin necessity and concerns.
             The largest changes were the "need for statin to prevent
             sickness" (p < 0.001) and "concern for statin to disrupt
             life" (p = 0.006). GGST patients had more statin
             prescriptions (p < 0.001), higher statin use (p < 0.001),
             and greater decrease in LDL-c (p = 0.059) during follow-up.
             EMR delivery of SLCO1B1*5 results and recommendations is
             feasible in the primary care setting. This novel
             intervention may improve patients' perceptions of statins
             and physician behaviors that promote higher statin adherence
             and lower LDL-c.},
   Doi = {10.3390/jpm4020147},
   Key = {fds319080}
}

@article{fds302559,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Moaddeb, J},
   Title = {Comparison of delivery strategies for pharmacogenetic
             testing services.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenet Genomics},
   Volume = {24},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {139-145},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24384556},
   Abstract = {The number and use of pharmacogenetic tests to assess a
             patient's likelihood of response or risk of an adverse event
             is expanding across medical specialties and becoming more
             prevalent. During this period of development and
             translation, different approaches are being investigated to
             optimize delivery of pharmacogenetic services. In this
             paper, we review pre-emptive and point-of-care delivery
             approaches currently implemented or being investigated and
             discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
             The continued growth in knowledge about the genetic basis of
             drug response combined with development of new and less
             expensive testing technologies and electronic medical
             records will impact future delivery systems. Regardless of
             delivery approach, the currently limited knowledge of health
             professionals about genetics generally or PGx specifically
             will remain a major obstacle to utilization.},
   Doi = {10.1097/FPC.0000000000000028},
   Key = {fds302559}
}

@article{fds302569,
   Author = {Zhao, JQ and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Promoting the participant-researcher partnership.},
   Journal = {Genet Med},
   Volume = {16},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {228-230},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24009003},
   Doi = {10.1038/gim.2013.118},
   Key = {fds302569}
}

@article{fds302560,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Delivering pharmacogenetic testing to the masses: an
             achievable goal?},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {15},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {1-4},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24329184},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs.13.211},
   Key = {fds302560}
}

@article{fds319079,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Mills, R and Pollak, KI and Rehder, C and Buchanan, AH and Lipkus, IM and Crow, JH and Datto, M},
   Title = {Developing patient-friendly genetic and genomic test
             reports: formats to promote patient engagement and
             understanding.},
   Journal = {Genome Med},
   Volume = {6},
   Number = {7},
   Pages = {58},
   Year = {2014},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13073-014-0058-6},
   Abstract = {With the emergence of electronic medical records and patient
             portals, patients are increasingly able to access their
             health records, including laboratory reports. However,
             laboratory reports are usually written for clinicians rather
             than patients, who may not understand much of the
             information in the report. While several professional
             guidelines define the content of test reports, there are no
             guidelines to inform the development of a patient-friendly
             laboratory report. In this Opinion, we consider patient
             barriers to comprehension of lab results and suggest several
             options to reformat the lab report to promote understanding
             of test results and their significance to patient care, and
             to reduce patient anxiety and confusion. In particular,
             patients' health literacy, genetic literacy, e-health
             literacy and risk perception may influence their overall
             understanding of lab results and affect patient care. We
             propose four options to reformat lab reports: 1) inclusion
             of an interpretive summary section, 2) a summary letter to
             accompany the lab report, 3) development of a patient user
             guide to be provided with the report, and 4) a completely
             revised patient-friendly report. The complexity of genetic
             and genomic test reports poses a major challenge to patient
             understanding that warrants the development of a report more
             appropriate for patients.},
   Doi = {10.1186/s13073-014-0058-6},
   Key = {fds319079}
}

@article{fds302555,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Mills, R and Moaddeb, J},
   Title = {Pharmacogenetic information for patients on drug
             labels.},
   Journal = {Pharmgenomics Pers Med},
   Volume = {7},
   Pages = {297-305},
   Year = {2014},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PGPM.S67876},
   Abstract = {Advances in pharmacogenetic research have improved our
             understanding of adverse drug responses and have led to the
             development of pharmacogenetic tests and targeted drugs.
             However, the extent of the communication process and
             provision of information to patients about pharmacogenetics
             is unclear. Pharmacogenetic information may be included in
             sections of a drug's package insert intended for patients,
             which is provided directly to patients or communicated via
             the health provider. To determine what pharmacogenetic
             information, if any, is included in patient-targeted
             sections of the drug label, we reviewed the labels listed in
             the US Food and Drug Administration's Table of
             Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labels. To date, 140
             drugs include pharmacogenetic-related information in the
             approved label. Our analysis revealed that pharmacogenetic
             information is included in patient-targeted sections for a
             minority (n=29; 21%) of drug labels, with no obvious pattern
             associated with the inclusion of pharmacogenetic
             information. Therefore, patients are unlikely to learn about
             pharmacogenetics through written materials dispensed with
             the drug. Given that there are also inconsistencies with
             regard to inclusion of pharmacogenetic information in the
             patient counseling information section, it is also unlikely
             that patients are receiving adequate pharmacogenetic
             information from their provider. The inconsistent presence
             of pharmacogenetic information in patient-targeted sections
             of drug labels suggests a need to review the criteria for
             inclusion of information in patient-targeted sections in
             order to increase consistency and patient knowledge of
             pharmacogenetic information.},
   Doi = {10.2147/PGPM.S67876},
   Key = {fds302555}
}

@article{fds302558,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Barry, WT and Mills, R and Svetkey, L and Suchindran, S and Willard, HF and Ginsburg, GS},
   Title = {Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for
             type 2 diabetes.},
   Journal = {Public Health Genomics},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {95-104},
   Year = {2014},
   ISSN = {1662-4246},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000358413},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND: Genetic information, typically communicated
             in-person by genetic counselors, can be challenging to
             comprehend; delivery of this information online--as is
             becoming more common--has the potential of increasing these
             challenges. METHODS: To address the impact of the mode of
             delivery of genomic risk information, 300 individuals were
             recruited from the general public and randomized to receive
             genomic risk information for type 2 diabetes mellitus
             in-person from a board-certified genetic counselor or online
             through the testing company's website. RESULTS: Participants
             were asked to indicate their genomic risk and overall
             lifetime risk as reported on their test report as well as to
             interpret their genomic risk (increased, decreased, or same
             as population). For each question, 59% of participants
             correctly indicated their risk. Participants who received
             their results in-person were more likely than those who
             reviewed their results on-line to correctly interpret their
             genomic risk (72 vs. 47%, p = 0.0002) and report their
             actual genomic risk (69 vs. 49%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS:
             The delivery of personal genomic risk through a trained
             health professional resulted in significantly higher
             comprehension. Therefore, if the online delivery of genomic
             test results is to become more widespread, further
             evaluation of this method of communication may be needed to
             ensure the effective presentation of results to promote
             comprehension.},
   Doi = {10.1159/000358413},
   Key = {fds302558}
}

@article{fds302571,
   Author = {Haga, SB and LaPointe, NMA},
   Title = {The potential impact of pharmacogenetic testing on
             medication adherence.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics J},
   Volume = {13},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {481-483},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {December},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23999596},
   Abstract = {Poor medication adherence is a well-known problem,
             particularly in patients with chronic conditions, and is
             associated with significant morbidity, mortality and
             health-care costs. Multi-faceted and personalized
             interventions have shown the greatest success.
             Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing may serve as another tool to
             boost patients' confidence in the safety and efficacy of
             prescribed medications. Here, we consider the potential
             impact (positively or negatively) of PGx testing on
             medication-taking behavior.},
   Doi = {10.1038/tpj.2013.33},
   Key = {fds302571}
}

@article{fds302563,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {100k Genome Project: sequencing and much
             more.},
   Journal = {Per Med},
   Volume = {10},
   Number = {8},
   Pages = {761-764},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {November},
   ISSN = {1741-0541},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pme.13.80},
   Doi = {10.2217/pme.13.80},
   Key = {fds302563}
}

@article{fds301321,
   Author = {Clayton, EW and Haga, S and Kuszler, P and Bane, E and Shutske, K and Burke, W},
   Title = {Managing incidental genomic findings: legal obligations of
             clinicians.},
   Journal = {Genet Med},
   Volume = {15},
   Number = {8},
   Pages = {624-629},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {August},
   ISSN = {1098-3600},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.7},
   Abstract = {PURPOSE: Clinical whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing
             will result in a broad range of incidental findings, but
             clinicians' obligations to identify and disclose such
             findings are a matter of debate. We sought legal cases that
             could offer insights into clinicians' legal liability.
             METHODS: We searched for cases in which incidental findings
             were related to the cause of action, using the search
             engines WestLaw, WestLaw Next, Lexis, and Lexis Advance.
             RESULTS: We found no case law related to incidental findings
             from genetic testing but identified eight cases involving
             incidental findings in medical imaging. These cases suggest
             that clinicians may face liability for failing to disclose
             incidental findings that would have offered an opportunity
             for interventions to improve health outcome, if under the
             applicable standard of care, they fail to identify or
             appreciate the significance of the incidental finding or
             they negligently fail to notify other clinicians and/or the
             patient of the identified incidental finding. Other cases
             support liability for failure to refer appropriately to a
             clinician with greater expertise. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians
             may face liability if they fail to disclose incidental
             information that could inform interventions to improve
             health outcome; information lacking clinical actionability
             is likely to have less import.},
   Doi = {10.1038/gim.2013.7},
   Key = {fds301321}
}

@article{fds301325,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Rosanbalm, KD and Boles, L and Tindall, GM and Livingston,
             TM and O'Daniel, JM},
   Title = {Promoting public awareness and engagement in genome
             sciences.},
   Journal = {J Genet Couns},
   Volume = {22},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {508-516},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23435715},
   Abstract = {Public understanding of genetic concepts and associated
             ethical and policy issues can enable informed deliberation
             and decision-making. Effective strategies for increasing
             public understanding involve providing forums incorporating
             the unique perspectives and attitudes of the public, while
             allowing opportunities to learn first-hand from scientists
             about genome research and related applications. Through a
             partnership between the Duke Institute for Genome Sciences &
             Policy (IGSP) and the Museum of Life and Science in Durham,
             NC, we developed and piloted a program aimed to bridge the
             concepts of formal (public school) and informal
             (community-based science museum) science learning with the
             experiential context of family and participatory learning.
             Called Genome Diner, we piloted the program with 40
             genetic/genomic researchers, 76 middle school students and
             their parents (n = 83) from Durham, NC. Program impact
             was assessed via pre/post surveys for each participant
             group. Following participation, parents were significantly
             more likely to correctly interpret the implications of a
             genome research finding, and both students and parents
             indicated higher interest in research as well as higher
             confidence in accessing and understanding genome research.
             Genetic literacy of parents and students was not affected by
             participation in the program, likely due to the relatively
             high knowledge scores pre-Diner: 88.3 % and 78.5 %,
             respectively. The interactive format of Genome Diner
             provided an opportunity for students and parents to explore
             and discuss interests and issues about genomic research
             alongside genome scientists, positively influencing
             attitudes toward genetic research and researchers
             themselves. These interactions are critical for maintaining
             public interest and knowledge about genomic research and
             applications.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10897-013-9577-3},
   Key = {fds301325}
}

@article{fds302568,
   Author = {Moaddeb, J and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Pharmacogenetic testing: Current Evidence of Clinical
             Utility.},
   Journal = {Ther Adv Drug Saf},
   Volume = {4},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {155-169},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {August},
   ISSN = {2042-0986},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24020014},
   Abstract = {Over the last decade, the number of clinical pharmacogenetic
             tests has steadily increased as understanding of the role of
             genes in drug response has grown. However, uptake of these
             tests has been slow, due in large part to the lack of robust
             evidence demonstrating clinical utility. We review the
             evidence behind four pharmacogenetic tests and discuss the
             barriers and facilitators to uptake: 1) warfarin (drug
             safety and efficacy); 2) clopidogrel (drug efficacy); 3)
             codeine (drug efficacy); and 4) abacavir (drug safety).
             Future efforts should be directed toward addressing these
             issues and considering additional approaches to generating
             evidence basis to support clinical use of pharmacogenetic
             tests.},
   Doi = {10.1177/2042098613485595},
   Key = {fds302568}
}

@article{fds301327,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Burke, W and Agans, R},
   Title = {Primary-care physicians' access to genetic specialists:
             an impediment to the routine use of genomic
             medicine?},
   Journal = {Genet Med},
   Volume = {15},
   Number = {7},
   Pages = {513-514},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23306802},
   Abstract = {PURPOSE: The field of genomic medicine is moving beyond the
             domain of medical specialties into general care. As a
             result, primary care practitioners (PCPs) will be faced with
             questions regarding the interpretation, use, and application
             of genetic and genomic testing. Several studies have
             demonstrated the variable knowledge of PCPs, but few have
             assessed PCPs access to genetic specialists and how that may
             influence test use. As part of a survey of PCPs on
             pharmacogenetic testing, we assessed PCP access to genetic
             specialists and its association with referrals and test
             ordering. METHODS: We conducted an online/mail survey of a
             national sample of PCPs in the U.S. RESULTS: Survey data
             indicate that PCP access to genetic specialists is limited,
             particularly to those practicing outside of academic medical
             centers, negatively impacting test ordering practices.
             CONCLUSION: Given the small number of clinical genetic
             specialists, collaborative approaches are needed to develop
             educational and clinical resources to prepare and guide the
             safe and appropriate use of testing by future and current
             general practitioners, respectively.},
   Doi = {10.1038/gim.2012.168},
   Key = {fds301327}
}

@article{fds301323,
   Author = {Mills, R and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Clinical delivery of pharmacogenetic testing services: a
             proposed partnership between genetic counselors and
             pharmacists.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {14},
   Number = {8},
   Pages = {957-968},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23746189},
   Abstract = {One of the basic questions in the early uses of
             pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing revolves around the clinical
             delivery of testing. Because multiple health professionals
             may play a role in the delivery of PGx testing, various
             clinical delivery models have begun to be studied. We
             propose that a partnership between genetic counselors and
             pharmacists can assist clinicians in the delivery of
             comprehensive PGx services. Based on their expert knowledge
             of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, pharmacists can
             facilitate the appropriate application of PGx test results
             to adjust medication use as warranted and act as a liaison
             to the healthcare team recommending changes in medication
             based on test results and patient input. Genetic counselors
             are well-trained in genetics as well as risk communication
             and counseling methodology, but have limited knowledge of
             pharmaceuticals. The complementary knowledge and skill set
             supports the partnership between genetic counselors and
             pharmacists to provide effective PGx testing
             services.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs.13.76},
   Key = {fds301323}
}

@article{fds301326,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Barry, WT and Mills, R and Ginsburg, GS and Svetkey, L and Sullivan, J and Willard, HF},
   Title = {Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and
             genetic testing.},
   Journal = {Genet Test Mol Biomarkers},
   Volume = {17},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {327-335},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {April},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23406207},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND: Variable health literacy and genetic knowledge
             may pose significant challenges to engaging the general
             public in personal genomics, specifically with respect to
             promoting risk comprehension and healthy behaviors. METHODS:
             We are conducting a multistage study of individual responses
             to genomic risk information for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. A
             total of 300 individuals were recruited from the general
             public in Durham, North Carolina: 60% self-identified as
             White; 70% female; and 65% have a college degree. As part of
             the baseline survey, we assessed genetic knowledge and
             attitudes toward genetic testing. RESULTS: Scores of factual
             knowledge of genetics ranged from 50% to 100% (average=84%),
             with significant differences in relation to racial groups,
             the education level, and age. Scores were significantly
             higher on questions pertaining to the inheritance and causes
             of disease (mean score 90%) compared to scientific questions
             (mean score 77.4%). Scores on the knowledge survey were
             significantly higher than scores from European populations.
             Participants' perceived knowledge of the social consequences
             of genetic testing was significantly lower than their
             perceived knowledge of the medical uses of testing. More
             than half agreed with the statement that testing may affect
             a person's ability to obtain health insurance (51.3%) and
             16% were worried about the consequences of testing for
             chances of finding a job. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the
             relatively high educational status and genetic knowledge of
             the study population, we find an imbalance of knowledge
             between scientific and medical concepts related to genetics
             as well as between the medical applications and societal
             consequences of testing, suggesting that more effort is
             needed to present the benefits, risks, and limitations of
             genetic testing, particularly, at the social and personal
             levels, to ensure informed decision making.},
   Doi = {10.1089/gtmb.2012.0350},
   Key = {fds301326}
}

@article{fds301324,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Burke, W and Ginsburg, GS and Mills, R and Agans,
             R},
   Title = {Primary care physicians' knowledge of and experience with
             pharmacogenetic testing},
   Journal = {Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey},
   Volume = {68},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {91-93},
   Publisher = {Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {February},
   ISSN = {0029-7828},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ogx.0000427617.89027.ca},
   Doi = {10.1097/01.ogx.0000427617.89027.ca},
   Key = {fds301324}
}

@article{fds302562,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Zhao, JQ},
   Title = {Stakeholder views on returning research results.},
   Journal = {Adv Genet},
   Volume = {84},
   Pages = {41-81},
   Year = {2013},
   ISSN = {0065-2660},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24262096},
   Abstract = {While the disclosure of research findings is relevant to all
             types of biomedical research, it has garnered particular
             attention with respect to genetics and genomics research due
             to some of the unique aspects of the data and the high
             public profile of the field. In this chapter, we review the
             attitudes of stakeholders (research participants,
             policymakers, and researchers) to define areas of consensus
             regarding the issue of returning research results across and
             within groups. In addition to stakeholder attitudes about
             obligations and interest in research results, other major
             related issues related to returning research results, such
             as informed consent, communication of research results, and
             cost, are discussed. Given the consensus between
             stakeholders to return summary reports of a study's outcomes
             and individual research results of clinical significance, we
             conclude that the time has come to encourage, if not
             require, researchers to consider these issues in the
             developmental planning stages of a project and to plan and
             budget accordingly.},
   Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-12-407703-4.00002-5},
   Key = {fds302562}
}

@article{fds302567,
   Author = {Mills, R and Voora, D and Peyser, B and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Delivering pharmacogenetic testing in a primary care
             setting.},
   Journal = {Pharmgenomics Pers Med},
   Volume = {6},
   Pages = {105-112},
   Year = {2013},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24101877},
   Abstract = {Pharmacogenetic testing refers to a type of genetic test to
             predict a patient's likelihood to experience an adverse
             event or not respond to a given drug. Despite revision to
             several labels of commonly prescribed drugs regarding the
             impact of genetic variation, the use of this testing has
             been limited in many settings due to a number of factors. In
             the primary care setting, the limited office time as well as
             the limited knowledge and experience of primary care
             practitioners have likely attributed to the slow uptake of
             pharmacogenetic testing. This paper provides talking points
             for primary care physicians to discuss with patients when
             pharmacogenetic testing is warranted. As patients and
             physicians become more familiar and accepting of
             pharmacogenetic testing, it is anticipated that discussion
             time will be comparable to that of other clinical
             tests.},
   Doi = {10.2147/PGPM.S50598},
   Key = {fds302567}
}

@article{fds319081,
   Author = {Hresko, A and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Insurance coverage policies for personalized
             medicine.},
   Journal = {J Pers Med},
   Volume = {2},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {201-216},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm2040201},
   Abstract = {Adoption of personalized medicine in practice has been slow,
             in part due to the lack of evidence of clinical benefit
             provided by these technologies. Coverage by insurers is a
             critical step in achieving widespread adoption of
             personalized medicine. Insurers consider a variety of
             factors when formulating medical coverage policies for
             personalized medicine, including the overall strength of
             evidence for a test, availability of clinical guidelines and
             health technology assessments by independent organizations.
             In this study, we reviewed coverage policies of the largest
             U.S. insurers for genomic (disease-related) and
             pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests to determine the extent that
             these tests were covered and the evidence basis for the
             coverage decisions. We identified 41 coverage policies for
             49 unique testing: 22 tests for disease diagnosis, prognosis
             and risk and 27 PGx tests. Fifty percent (or less) of the
             tests reviewed were covered by insurers. Lack of evidence of
             clinical utility appears to be a major factor in decisions
             of non-coverage. The inclusion of PGx information in drug
             package inserts appears to be a common theme of PGx tests
             that are covered. This analysis highlights the variability
             of coverage determinations and factors considered,
             suggesting that the adoption of personal medicine will
             affected by numerous factors, but will continue to be slowed
             due to lack of demonstrated clinical benefit.},
   Doi = {10.3390/jpm2040201},
   Key = {fds319081}
}

@article{fds301373,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Burke, W and Ginsburg, GS and Mills, R and Agans,
             R},
   Title = {Primary care physicians' knowledge of and experience with
             pharmacogenetic testing.},
   Journal = {Clin Genet},
   Volume = {82},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {388-394},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22698141},
   Abstract = {It is anticipated that as the range of drugs for which
             pharmacogenetic testing becomes available expands, primary
             care physicians (PCPs) will become major users of these
             tests. To assess their training, familiarity, and attitudes
             toward pharmacogenetic testing in order to identify barriers
             to uptake that may be addressed at this early stage of test
             use, we conducted a national survey of a sample of PCPs.
             Respondents were mostly white (79%), based primarily in
             community-based primary care (81%) and almost evenly divided
             between family medicine and internal medicine. The majority
             of respondents had heard of PGx testing and anticipated that
             these tests are or would soon become a valuable tool to
             inform drug response. However, only a minority of
             respondents (13%) indicated they felt comfortable ordering
             PGx tests and almost a quarter reported not having any
             education about pharmacogenetics. Our results indicate that
             primary care practitioners envision a major role for
             themselves in the delivery of PGx testing but recognize
             their lack of adequate knowledge and experience about these
             tests. Development of effective tools for guiding PCPs in
             the use of PGx tests should be a high priority.},
   Doi = {10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01908.x},
   Key = {fds301373}
}

@article{fds301328,
   Author = {Mills, RA and Haga, SB and Ginsburg, GS},
   Title = {Genetic testing: clinical and personal utility.},
   Journal = {Virtual Mentor},
   Volume = {14},
   Number = {8},
   Pages = {604-609},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23351313},
   Doi = {10.1001/virtualmentor.2012.14.8.ecas1-1208},
   Key = {fds301328}
}

@article{fds301362,
   Author = {Haga, SB and O'Daniel, JM and Tindall, GM and Mills, R and Lipkus, IM and Agans, R},
   Title = {Survey of genetic counselors and clinical geneticists' use
             and attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing.},
   Journal = {Clin Genet},
   Volume = {82},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {115-120},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22283474},
   Abstract = {Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing aims to improve therapeutic
             outcomes through tailoring treatment based on a patient's
             genetic risk for non-response and/or an adverse event. Given
             their expertise, geneticists could facilitate the use of PGx
             testing; however, the preparedness and perceived role of the
             clinical genetics community is unclear. To assess the
             attitudes, preparedness, and perceived roles of geneticists
             in the delivery of PGx testing, we conducted a survey of
             1500 randomly selected board-certified genetic counselors
             and clinical geneticists in the United States [response
             rate: 37.8% (n = 516)]. Twelve percent of genetic counselors
             and 41% of clinical geneticists indicated that they had
             ordered or coordinated patient care for PGx testing, a
             seemingly high proportion at this early stage of adoption.
             Almost all respondents had some education on
             pharmacogenetics, although only 28% of counselors and 58% of
             clinical geneticists indicated they felt well-informed about
             PGx testing. About half of counselors (52%) and clinical
             geneticists (46%) felt they would play 'some' role in the
             delivery of PGx testing; 17 and 19%, respectively, felt that
             they would play 'no' or 'a little' role. At this early stage
             of PGx testing, the role of geneticists and genetic
             counselors is unclear. However, their experience may aid in
             readying PGx testing and informing delivery strategies into
             clinical practice.},
   Doi = {10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01848.x},
   Key = {fds301362}
}

@article{fds301363,
   Author = {Haga, SB and O'Daniel, JM and Tindall, GM and Mills, R and Lipkus, I and Agans, R},
   Title = {Response to Newman et al},
   Journal = {Clinical Genetics},
   Volume = {82},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {203},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {August},
   ISSN = {0009-9163},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01874.x},
   Doi = {10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01874.x},
   Key = {fds301363}
}

@article{fds301368,
   Author = {Kraus, WE and Haga, SB and McLeod, HL and Staples, J and Ginsburg,
             GS},
   Title = {Conference Scene: Is personalized medicine ready for prime
             time?},
   Journal = {Per Med},
   Volume = {9},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {475-478},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {July},
   ISSN = {1741-0541},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pme.12.57},
   Abstract = {This article provides a meeting report from the Duke Center
             for Personalized Medicine 2012 Symposium, which took place
             in Durham, NC, USA, on 29 March 2012. The event titled 'At
             the Interface of Clinical Research and Clinical Medicine',
             focused on many of the issues that arise as personalized
             medicine becomes integrated into clinical care. In
             particular, we summarize presentations on various topics:
             the future of genomic medicine, opportunities in
             pharmacogenomics and genetic testing; challenges in the
             clinical implementation of personalized medicine; systems
             medicine and biomedical informatics; the policy and
             education strategies for adopting personalized medicine; the
             common bond between comparative effectiveness and
             personalized medicine; and the value of personalized
             medicine.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pme.12.57},
   Key = {fds301368}
}

@article{fds301361,
   Author = {Haga, SB and O'Daniel, JM and Tindall, GM and Lipkus, IR and Agans,
             R},
   Title = {Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic
             testing.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics J},
   Volume = {12},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {197-204},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21321582},
   Abstract = {To assess public attitudes and interest in pharmacogenetic
             (PGx) testing, we conducted a random-digit-dial telephone
             survey of US adults, achieving a response rate of 42%
             (n=1139). Most respondents expressed interest in PGx testing
             to predict mild or serious side effects (73±3.29 and
             85±2.91%, respectively), guide dosing (91%) and assist with
             drug selection (92%). Younger individuals (aged 18-34 years)
             were more likely to be interested in PGx testing to predict
             serious side effects (vs aged 55+ years), as well as Whites,
             those with a college degree, and who had experienced side
             effects from medications. However, most respondents
             (78±3.14%) were not likely to have a PGx test if there was
             a risk that their DNA sample or test result could be shared
             without their permission. Given differences in interest
             among some groups, providers should clearly discuss the
             purpose of testing, alternative testing options (if
             available) and policies to protect patient privacy and
             confidentiality.},
   Doi = {10.1038/tpj.2011.1},
   Key = {fds301361}
}

@article{fds301360,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Tindall, G and O'Daniel, JM},
   Title = {Public perspectives about pharmacogenetic testing and
             managing ancillary findings.},
   Journal = {Genet Test Mol Biomarkers},
   Volume = {16},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {193-197},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22047505},
   Abstract = {AIMS: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests are intended to improve
             therapeutic outcomes through predicting a patient's
             likelihood to respond to or experience an adverse effect
             from a specific treatment. In addition, PGx testing may also
             generate ancillary, or incidental, disease information
             unrelated to the purpose for which the test was ordered. To
             assess public attitudes toward PGx testing, ancillary
             disease risk information and related clinical issues, we
             conducted a series of focus groups. RESULTS: Forty-five
             individuals recruited from Durham, NC, participated in four
             focus groups. Overall, participants were enthusiastic about
             PGx testing, though expressed concerns about privacy,
             confidentiality, and psychological harms associated with
             ancillary information. Focus group participants believed
             that physicians had a responsibility to disclose ancillary
             risk information, but were concerned about managing and
             coping with unexpected disease risk information. CONCLUSION:
             We find that participants welcomed the integration of PGx
             testing into therapeutic decision-making. Public concerns
             about PGx testing and ancillary information specifically
             centered on personal implications of learning such
             additional information, suggesting that patient-provider
             discussion of the benefits and risks of testing will be
             necessary until public familiarity with these tests
             increases.},
   Doi = {10.1089/gtmb.2011.0118},
   Key = {fds301360}
}

@article{fds301358,
   Author = {O'Daniel, JM and Rosanbalm, KD and Boles, L and Tindall, GM and Livingston, TM and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Enhancing geneticists' perspectives of the public through
             community engagement.},
   Journal = {Genet Med},
   Volume = {14},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {243-249},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {February},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22241095},
   Abstract = {PURPOSE: Given the rapid pace of genetic and genomic
             research and technology development, public engagement on
             scientific issues may be mutually beneficial to the research
             community and the general public. The public may benefit
             from a greater understanding of concepts and new
             applications, and researchers can build awareness of public
             knowledge, perceptions, and potential concerns about genomic
             research and applications. METHODS: We developed and piloted
             a public engagement program called Genome Diner to
             facilitate dialog between genetic/genomic researchers (n =
             40) and middle school students (n = 76) and their parents (n
             = 83) from the local community. Program impact was assessed
             through pre- and post-Diner surveys for each group. RESULTS:
             After participation in Genome Diner, researchers' views were
             positively affected regarding the (adult) public's level of
             understanding of genetic concepts, beliefs about relevance
             of research, and the importance of researcher-community
             interaction. CONCLUSION: Through an interactive discussion
             with students and parents, researchers gained valuable
             insight into public perspectives about genome research. The
             engagement format of the Genome Diner program presents a
             novel method of fostering trust and relationships between
             the two groups and to inform both the public and the
             researchers, whose work may depend on public opinion and
             participation.},
   Doi = {10.1038/gim.2011.29},
   Key = {fds301358}
}

@article{fds301369,
   Author = {Cho, AH and Killeya-Jones, LA and O'Daniel, JM and Kawamoto, K and Gallagher, P and Haga, S and Lucas, JE and Trujillo, GM and Joy, SV and Ginsburg, GS},
   Title = {Effect of genetic testing for risk of type 2 diabetes
             mellitus on health behaviors and outcomes: study rationale,
             development and design.},
   Journal = {BMC Health Serv Res},
   Volume = {12},
   Pages = {16},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22257365},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is a prevalent chronic condition
             globally that results in extensive morbidity, decreased
             quality of life, and increased health services utilization.
             Lifestyle changes can prevent the development of diabetes,
             but require patient engagement. Genetic risk testing might
             represent a new tool to increase patients' motivation for
             lifestyle changes. Here we describe the rationale,
             development, and design of a randomized controlled trial
             (RCT) assessing the clinical and personal utility of
             incorporating type 2 diabetes genetic risk testing into
             comprehensive diabetes risk assessments performed in a
             primary care setting. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients are recruited
             in the laboratory waiting areas of two primary care clinics
             and enrolled into one of three study arms. Those interested
             in genetic risk testing are randomized to receive either a
             standard risk assessment (SRA) for type 2 diabetes
             incorporating conventional risk factors plus upfront
             disclosure of the results of genetic risk testing ("SRA+G"
             arm), or the SRA alone ("SRA" arm). Participants not
             interested in genetic risk testing will not receive the
             test, but will receive SRA (forming a third, "no-test" arm).
             Risk counseling is provided by clinic staff (not study staff
             external to the clinic). Fasting plasma glucose, insulin
             levels, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference are
             measured at baseline and 12 months, as are patients'
             self-reported behavioral and emotional responses to diabetes
             risk information. Primary outcomes are changes in insulin
             resistance and BMI after 12 months; secondary outcomes
             include changes in diet patterns, physical activity, waist
             circumference, and perceived risk of developing diabetes.
             DISCUSSION: The utility, feasibility, and efficacy of
             providing patients with genetic risk information for common
             chronic diseases in primary care remain unknown. The study
             described here will help to establish whether providing type
             2 diabetes genetic risk information in a primary care
             setting can help improve patients' clinical outcomes, risk
             perceptions, and/or their engagement in healthy behavior
             change. In addition, study design features such as the use
             of existing clinic personnel for risk counseling could
             inform the future development and implementation of care
             models for the use of individual genetic risk information in
             primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov:
             NCT00849563.},
   Doi = {10.1186/1472-6963-12-16},
   Key = {fds301369}
}

@article{fds301359,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Tindall, G and O'Daniel, JM},
   Title = {Professional perspectives about pharmacogenetic testing and
             managing ancillary findings.},
   Journal = {Genet Test Mol Biomarkers},
   Volume = {16},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {21-24},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21770772},
   Abstract = {AIMS: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests, intended to inform
             therapeutic decision making through prediction of patient
             likelihood to respond to or experience an adverse effect
             from a specific treatment, may also generate ancillary, or
             incidental, disease information unrelated to the purpose for
             which the test was ordered. To assess attitudes toward PGx
             testing, ancillary disease risk information, and related
             clinical issues, we conducted a series of focus groups among
             health professionals. RESULTS: Twenty-one primary care and
             genetics professionals from Durham, NC, were recruited to
             participate in three focus groups (two of primary care
             professionals [PCPs] and one of geneticists). Overall,
             interest in PGx testing was positive, though enthusiasm was
             reserved among PCPs due to concerns about clinical utility,
             insurance coverage, delay of treatment, and ability to
             communicate and interpret ancillary disease risk
             information. Although many PCPs felt an obligation to
             disclose information about ancillary disease risk,
             geneticists did not believe that it was always necessary,
             noting the complexities of genetic risk results such as
             incomplete penetrance. CONCLUSION: This pilot study found
             that health professionals' interest in the use of PGx
             testing was limited by concerns about the lack of evidence
             of clinical utility and their ability to interpret and
             communicate ancillary disease risk information to patients.
             Additional educational resources, access to genetic
             specialists, and clear clinical guidelines about the use of
             PGx testing would greatly facilitate appropriate use of
             testing.},
   Doi = {10.1089/gtmb.2011.0045},
   Key = {fds301359}
}

@article{fds301364,
   Author = {Kanakamedala, P and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Characterization of clinical study populations by race and
             ethnicity in biomedical literature.},
   Journal = {Ethn Dis},
   Volume = {22},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {96-101},
   Year = {2012},
   ISSN = {1049-510X},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22774316},
   Abstract = {OBJECTIVE: The importance of race and ethnicity in
             biomedical research has long been a subject of debate,
             recently heightened by data revealed by the completion of
             the sequencing of the human genome and the mapping of human
             genetic variation. We aimed to determine whether and how the
             reporting of race has changed over the last three decades
             and how the practice may differ given study location, where
             the journal of publication is based, and decade of
             publication. DESIGN: We analyzed a sample of studies
             published in the Journal of the American Medical
             Association, The Lancet, and the Canadian Medical
             Association Journal from 1980 to 2009. MAIN OUTCOME
             MEASURES: The number of articles that reported race by
             journal and decade and the descriptors used. RESULTS: Of
             1867 articles analyzed, 17.30% reported race. The reporting
             of race and number of populations reported increased over
             time for all three journals. In addition, the diversity of
             race/ethnicity descriptors increased, with increased use of
             race/ethnicity combinations and nationality of research
             subjects. CONCLUSION: Though it has increased over the past
             few decades, the reporting of race/ethnicity of study
             populations is relatively low, ambiguous and inconsistent,
             likely influenced by the uncertain relevance of these
             variables to the study's outcomes, study location,
             researcher views, and the policies of journals and funding
             agencies. Thus, due to the inconsistent and ambiguous
             practice of reporting race/ethnicity, comparison of study
             outcomes can result in misleading conclusions. Improvements
             in standardization of terms and new approaches to
             characterize research participants related to race/ethnicity
             are imperative.},
   Key = {fds301364}
}

@article{fds301367,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Kawamoto, K and Agans, R and Ginsburg,
             GS},
   Title = {Consideration of patient preferences and challenges in
             storage and access of pharmacogenetic test
             results.},
   Journal = {Genet Med},
   Volume = {13},
   Number = {10},
   Pages = {887-890},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21673581},
   Abstract = {PURPOSE: Pharmacogenetic testing is one of the primary
             drivers of personalized medicine. The use of pharmacogenetic
             testing may provide a lifetime of benefits through tailoring
             drug dosing and selection of multiple medications to improve
             therapeutic outcomes and reduce adverse responses. We aimed
             to assess public interest and concerns regarding sharing and
             storage of pharmacogenetic test results that would
             facilitate the reuse of pharmacogenetic data across a
             lifetime of care. METHODS: We conducted a random-digit-dial
             phone survey of a sample of the US public. RESULTS: We
             achieved an overall response rate of 42% (n = 1139). Most
             respondents indicated that they were extremely or somewhat
             comfortable allowing their pharmacogenetic test results to
             be shared with other doctors involved in their care
             management (90% ± 2.18%); significantly fewer respondents
             (74% ± 3.27%) indicated that they were extremely or
             somewhat comfortable sharing results with their pharmacist
             (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Patients, pharmacists, and
             physicians will all be critical players in the
             pharmacotherapy process. Patients are supportive of sharing
             pharmacogenetic test results with physicians and pharmacists
             and personally maintaining their test results. However,
             further study is needed to understand which options are
             needed for sharing, appropriate storage, and patient
             education about the relevance of pharmacogenetic test
             results to promote consideration of this information by
             other prescribing practitioners.},
   Doi = {10.1097/GIM.0b013e31822077a5},
   Key = {fds301367}
}

@article{fds301355,
   Author = {Haga, SB and O'Daniel, JM and Tindall, GM and Lipkus, IR and Agans,
             R},
   Title = {Public attitudes toward ancillary information revealed by
             pharmacogenetic testing under limited information
             conditions.},
   Journal = {Genet Med},
   Volume = {13},
   Number = {8},
   Pages = {723-728},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21633294},
   Abstract = {PURPOSE: Pharmacogenetic testing can inform drug dosing and
             selection by aiding in estimating a patient's genetic risk
             of adverse response and/or failure to respond. Some
             pharmacogenetic tests may generate ancillary clinical
             information unrelated to the drug treatment question for
             which testing is done-an informational "side effect." We
             aimed to assess public interest and concerns about
             pharmacogenetic tests and ancillary information. METHODS: We
             conducted a random-digit-dial phone survey of a sample of
             the US public. RESULTS: We achieved an overall response rate
             of 42% (n = 1139). When the potential for ancillary
             information was presented, 85% (±2.82%) of respondents
             expressed interest in pharmacogenetic testing, compared with
             82% (±3.02%) before discussion of ancillary information.
             Most respondents (89% ± 2.27%) indicated that physicians
             should inform patients that a pharmacogenetic test may
             reveal ancillary risk information before testing is ordered.
             Respondents' interest in actually learning of the ancillary
             risk finding significantly differed based on disease
             severity, availability of an intervention, and test
             validity, even after adjusting for age, gender, education,
             and race. CONCLUSION: Under the limited information
             conditions presented in the survey, the potential of
             ancillary information does not negatively impact public
             interest in pharmacogenetic testing. Interest in learning
             ancillary information is well aligned with the public's
             desire to be informed about potential benefits and risks
             before testing, promoting patient autonomy.},
   Doi = {10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821afcc0},
   Key = {fds301355}
}

@article{fds301370,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Carrig, MM and O'Daniel, JM and Orlando, LA and Killeya-Jones, LA and Ginsburg, GS and Cho, A},
   Title = {Genomic risk profiling: attitudes and use in personal and
             clinical care of primary care physicians who offer risk
             profiling.},
   Journal = {J Gen Intern Med},
   Volume = {26},
   Number = {8},
   Pages = {834-840},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21311998},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND: Genomic risk profiling involves the analysis of
             genetic variations linked through statistical associations
             to a range of disease states. There is considerable
             controversy as to how, and even whether, to incorporate
             these tests into routine medical care. OBJECTIVE: To assess
             physician attitudes and uptake of genomic risk profiling
             among an 'early adopter' practice group. DESIGN: We surveyed
             members of MDVIP, a national group of primary care
             physicians (PCPs), currently offering genomic risk profiling
             as part of their practice. POPULATION: All physicians in the
             MDVIP network (N = 356) RESULTS: We obtained a 44% response
             rate. One third of respondents had ordered a test for
             themselves and 42% for a patient. The odds of having ordered
             personal testing were 10.51-fold higher for those who felt
             well-informed about genomic risk testing (p < 0.0001).
             Of those who had not ordered a test for themselves, 60%
             expressed concerns for patients regarding discrimination by
             life and long-term/disability insurers, 61% about test cost,
             and 62% about clinical utility. The odds of ordering testing
             for their patients was 8.29-fold higher among respondents
             who had ordered testing for themselves (p < 0.0001). Of
             those who had ordered testing for patients, concerns about
             insurance coverage (p = 0.014) and uncertain clinical
             utility (p = 0.034) were associated with a lower relative
             frequency of intention to order testing again in the future.
             CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that respondent
             familiarity was a key predictor of physician ordering
             behavior and clinical utility was a primary concern for
             genomic risk profiling. Educational and interpretive support
             may enhance uptake of genomic risk profiling.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s11606-011-1651-7},
   Key = {fds301370}
}

@article{fds301354,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Burke, W},
   Title = {Practical ethics: establishing a pathway to benefit for
             complex pharmacogenomic tests.},
   Journal = {Clin Pharmacol Ther},
   Volume = {90},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {25-27},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21691271},
   Abstract = {Pharmacogenomic tests offer a promising strategy to improve
             the safety and efficacy of drug treatment. Compelling
             examples, such as HLA-B*5701 testing to identify patients at
             risk for abacavir-associated hypersensitivity, are already
             changing clinical care. However, the level of evidence
             required to establish clinical utility is often the subject
             of debate. Determining the most efficient and effective
             pathway to benefit for a given test is therefore both a
             practical and an ethical concern.},
   Doi = {10.1038/clpt.2011.71},
   Key = {fds301354}
}

@article{fds301356,
   Author = {Haga, SB and O'Daniel, J},
   Title = {Public perspectives regarding data-sharing practices in
             genomics research.},
   Journal = {Public Health Genomics},
   Volume = {14},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {319-324},
   Year = {2011},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21430368},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND: Genomics research data are often widely shared
             through a variety of mechanisms including publication,
             meetings and online databases. Re-identification of research
             participants from sequence data has been shown possible,
             raising concerns of participants' privacy. METHODS: In
             2008-09, we convened 10 focus groups in Durham, N.C. to
             explore attitudes about how genomic research data were
             shared amongst the research community, communication of
             these practices to participants and how different policies
             might influence participants' likelihood to consent to a
             genetic/genomic study. Focus groups were audio-recorded and
             transcripts were complemented by a short anonymous survey.
             Of 100 participants, 73% were female and 76%
             African-American, with a median age of 40-49 years. RESULTS:
             Overall, we found that discussants expressed concerns about
             privacy and confidentially of data shared through online
             databases. Although discussants recognized the benefits of
             data-sharing, they believed it was important to inform
             research participants of a study's data-sharing plans during
             the informed consent process. Discussants were significantly
             more likely to participate in a study that planned to
             deposit data in a restricted access online database compared
             to an open access database (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: The
             combination of the potential loss of privacy with concerns
             about data access and identity of the research sponsor
             warrants disclosure about a study's data-sharing plans
             during the informed consent process.},
   Doi = {10.1159/000324705},
   Key = {fds301356}
}

@article{fds301357,
   Author = {O'Daniel, J and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Public perspectives on returning genetics and genomics
             research results.},
   Journal = {Public Health Genomics},
   Volume = {14},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {346-355},
   Year = {2011},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21555865},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND: The debate about returning research results has
             revealed different perspectives among researchers,
             participants and advisory groups with participants generally
             interested in obtaining their results. Given this
             preference, policies regarding return of individual research
             results may affect whether a potential subject chooses to
             participate in a study. Public attitudes, particularly those
             of African-Americans, toward this issue have been
             understudied. METHODS: In 2008-2009, we convened 10 focus
             groups in Durham, N.C. to explore attitudes about returning
             research results and how different policies might influence
             their likelihood to participate in genetic/genomic studies.
             Transcripts were complimented by a short anonymous survey.
             Of 100 participants, 73% were female and 76%
             African-American with a median age of 40-49 years. RESULTS:
             Although there was general interest in obtaining genetics
             research results, particularly individual results,
             discussants recognized many potential complexities. The
             option to obtain research results (individual or summary)
             was clearly valued and lack thereof was potentially a
             deterrent for genetic/genomic research enrollment.
             CONCLUSIONS: Providing the option to learn research results
             may help strengthen relationships between investigators and
             participants and thereby serve as a positive influencing
             factor for minority communities. Consideration of the
             broader implications of returning research results is
             warranted. Engaging diverse publics is essential to gain a
             balance between the interests and burdens of participants
             and investigators.},
   Doi = {10.1159/000324933},
   Key = {fds301357}
}

@article{fds301352,
   Author = {Heaney, C and Tindall, G and Lucas, J and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Researcher practices on returning genetic research
             results.},
   Journal = {Genet Test Mol Biomarkers},
   Volume = {14},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {821-827},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {December},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20939736},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND/AIMS: as genetic and genomic research
             proliferates, debate has ensued about returning results to
             participants. In addition to consideration of the benefits
             and harms to participants, researchers must also consider
             the logistical and financial feasibility of returning
             research results. However, little data exist of actual
             researcher practices. METHODS: we conducted an online survey
             of 446 corresponding authors of genetic/genomic studies
             conducted in the United States and published in 2006-2007 to
             assess the frequency with which they considered, offered to,
             or actually returned research results, what factors
             influenced these decisions, and the method of communicating
             results. RESULTS: the response rate was 24% (105/446).
             Fifty-four percent of respondents considered the issue of
             returning research results to participants, 28% offered to
             return individual research results, and 24% actually
             returned individual research results. Of those who
             considered the issue of returning research results during
             the study planning phase, the most common factors considered
             were whether research results were deemed clinically useful
             (18%) and respect for participants (13%). Researchers who
             had a medical degree and conducted studies on children were
             significantly more likely to offer to return or actually
             return individual results compared to those with a Ph.D.
             only. CONCLUSIONS: we speculate that issues associated with
             clinical validity and respect for participants dominated
             concerns of time and expense given the prominent and
             continuing ethical debates surrounding genetics and genomics
             research. The substantial number of researchers who did not
             consider returning research results suggests that
             researchers and institutional review boards need to devote
             more attention to a topic about which research participants
             are interested.},
   Doi = {10.1089/gtmb.2010.0066},
   Key = {fds301352}
}

@article{fds301353,
   Author = {Surh, LC and Pacanowski, MA and Haga, SB and Hobbs, S and Lesko, LJ and Gottlieb, S and Papaluca-Amati, M and Patterson, SD and Hughes, AR and Kim, M-J and Close, SL and Mosteller, M and Zineh, I and Dechairo, B and Cohen, NA},
   Title = {Learning from product labels and label changes: how to build
             pharmacogenomics into drug-development programs.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenomics},
   Volume = {11},
   Number = {12},
   Pages = {1637-1647},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {1462-2416},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/pgs.10.138},
   Abstract = {The 2010 US FDA-Drug Industry Association (DIA)
             Pharmacogenomics (PGx) Workshop follows a series that began
             in 2002 bringing together multidisciplinary experts spanning
             regulatory authorities, medical research, healthcare and
             industry. This report summarizes the 'Building PGx into
             Labels' sessions from the workshop, which discussed the
             critical elements in developing PGx outcomes leading to
             product labels that inform efficacy and/or safety. Examples
             were drawn from US prescribing information, which integrated
             PGx knowledge into medical decisions (e.g., panitumumab,
             warfarin and clopidogrel). Attendees indicated the need for
             broader dialog and for guidelines on evidentiary
             considerations for PGx to be included into product labels.
             Also discussed was the understanding of appropriate PGx
             placement on labels; how to encourage adoption by medical
             communities of label recommendations on PGx tests; and,
             given the global nature of drug development, worldwide
             considerations including European Summary of Product
             Characteristics.},
   Doi = {10.2217/pgs.10.138},
   Key = {fds301353}
}

@article{fds301351,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Analysis of educational materials and destruction/opt-out
             initiatives for storage and use of residual newborn
             screening samples.},
   Journal = {Genet Test Mol Biomarkers},
   Volume = {14},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {587-592},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20858049},
   Abstract = {In recent years, the storage and use of residual newborn
             screening (NBS) samples has gained attention. To inform
             ongoing policy discussions, this article provides an update
             of previous work on new policies, educational materials, and
             parental options regarding the storage and use of residual
             NBS samples. A review of state NBS Web sites was conducted
             for information related to the storage and use of residual
             NBS samples in January 2010. In addition, a review of
             current statutes and bills introduced between 2005 and 2009
             regarding storage and/or use of residual NBS samples was
             conducted. Fourteen states currently provide information
             about the storage and/or use of residual NBS samples. Nine
             states provide parents the option to request destruction of
             the residual NBS sample after the required storage period or
             the option to exclude the sample for research uses. In the
             coming years, it is anticipated that more states will
             consider policies to address parental concerns about the
             storage and use of residual NBS samples. Development of new
             policies regarding storage and use of residual NBS samples
             will require careful consideration of impact on NBS
             programs, parent and provider educational materials, and
             respect for parents among other issues.},
   Doi = {10.1089/gtmb.2010.0010},
   Key = {fds301351}
}

@article{fds301350,
   Author = {O'Daniel, JM and Haga, SB and Willard, HF},
   Title = {Considerations for the impact of personal genome
             information: a study of genomic profiling among genetics and
             genomics professionals.},
   Journal = {J Genet Couns},
   Volume = {19},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {387-401},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20352309},
   Abstract = {With the expansion of genomic-based clinical applications,
             it is important to consider the potential impact of this
             information particularly in terms of how it may be
             interpreted and applied to personal perceptions of health.
             As an initial step to exploring this question, we conducted
             a study to gain insight into potential psychosocial and
             health motivations for, as well as impact associated with,
             undergoing testing and disclosure of individual "variomes"
             (catalogue of genetic variations). To enable the collection
             of fully informed opinions, 14 participants with advanced
             training in genetics underwent whole-genome profiling and
             received individual reports of estimated genomic ancestry,
             genotype data and reported disease associations. Emotional,
             cognitive and health behavioral impact was assessed through
             one-on-one interviews and questionnaires administered
             pre-testing and 1-week and 3-months post-testing.
             Notwithstanding the educational and professional bias of our
             study population, the results identify several areas of
             research for consideration within additional populations.
             With the development of new and less costly approaches to
             genome risk profiling, now available for purchase
             direct-to-consumers, it is essential that genome science
             research be conducted in parallel with studies assessing the
             societal and policy implications of genome information for
             personal use.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10897-010-9297-x},
   Key = {fds301350}
}

@article{fds301349,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Impact of limited population diversity of genome-wide
             association studies.},
   Journal = {Genet Med},
   Volume = {12},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {81-84},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {February},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20057316},
   Abstract = {The article describes the limited population diversity of
             genome-wide association studies and its resulting impact on
             the development of commercial genetic tests with restricted
             applicability and usefulness to certain groups, potentially
             increasing existing disparities. To enable development of
             new clinical tools applicable to all groups, much more focus
             is needed to engage minority communities to enroll in
             genetics or genomic research studies and on investigators to
             reach out to underrepresented communities.},
   Doi = {10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181ca2bbf},
   Key = {fds301349}
}

@article{fds301348,
   Author = {O'Daniel, J and Lucas, J and Deverka, P and Ermentrout, D and Silvey, G and Lobach, DF and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Factors influencing uptake of pharmacogenetic testing in a
             diverse patient population.},
   Journal = {Public Health Genomics},
   Volume = {13},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {48-54},
   Year = {2010},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19407441},
   Abstract = {BACKGROUND: The successful integration of pharmacogenetic
             (PGx) testing into clinical care will require attention to
             patient attitudes. In this study, we aimed to identify the
             major reasons why patients would or would not consider PGx
             testing and whether these factors differed by race,
             socioeconomic and insurance status, and medical history.
             METHODS: We developed and conducted a survey within the
             adult patient population of the Duke Family Medicine Center.
             RESULTS: Of 75 completed surveys (65% African-American), 77%
             indicated they were 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to
             take a PGx test. Respondents who had experienced a side
             effect were significantly more likely to indicate they would
             take a PGx test and expressed greater interest in learning
             more about testing than those who had not. Drug safety and
             effectiveness were the major reasons to have PGx testing.
             Privacy concerns and lack of insurance coverage for testing
             were the major reasons to decline testing. CONCLUSIONS: We
             found no differences in interest in PGx tests by race or
             socioeconomic status, but found stronger interest from those
             with a history of side effects and private insurance. While
             the overall support of PGx testing is encouraging, greater
             reassurance of medical privacy and development of
             educational resources are needed.},
   Doi = {10.1159/000217795},
   Key = {fds301348}
}

@article{fds301347,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Terry, SF},
   Title = {Ensuring the safe use of genomic medicine in
             children.},
   Journal = {Clin Pediatr (Phila)},
   Volume = {48},
   Number = {7},
   Pages = {703-708},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19448129},
   Abstract = {Several clinical guidelines recommend that genetic testing
             in children be limited to tests with immediate clinical
             benefit. However, use of genome risk profiling will not
             likely meet this requirement, as the benefits are
             anticipated to be years away. Children who are at higher
             risk, though, will benefit the most from early initiation of
             treatment or interventions. The shift in benefit from
             immediate to long-term benefit warrants a reevaluation of
             the current practices of testing in children. In this
             commentary, the authors advocate the use of genomic risk
             profiling to identify children at increased risk who would
             benefit from early intervention, but recognize that its
             integration in clinical practice for this population will
             require a more nuanced approach to delivery and follow-up.
             In particular, the importance of counseling, context,
             consent, communication, and follow-up in the delivery of
             genomic risk testing to children and adolescents is
             highlighted.},
   Doi = {10.1177/0009922809335736},
   Key = {fds301347}
}

@article{fds301345,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Ethical issues of predictive genetic testing for
             diabetes.},
   Journal = {Journal of diabetes science and technology},
   Volume = {3},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {781-788},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20144329},
   Abstract = {With the rising number of individuals affected with diabetes
             and the significant health care costs of treatment, the
             emphasis on prevention is key to controlling the health
             burden of this disease. Several genetic and genomic studies
             have identified genetic variants associated with increased
             risk to diabetes. As a result, commercial testing is
             available to predict an individual's genetic risk. Although
             the clinical benefits of testing have not yet been
             demonstrated, it is worth considering some of the ethical
             implications of testing for this common chronic disease. In
             this article, I discuss several issues that should be
             considered during the translation of predictive testing for
             diabetes, including familial implications, improvement of
             risk communication, implications for behavioral change and
             health outcomes, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
             Act, direct-to-consumer testing, and appropriate age of
             testing.},
   Doi = {10.1177/193229680900300427},
   Key = {fds301345}
}

@article{fds301346,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Warner, LR and O'Daniel, J},
   Title = {The potential of a placebo/nocebo effect in
             pharmacogenetics.},
   Journal = {Public Health Genomics},
   Volume = {12},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {158-162},
   Year = {2009},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19204418},
   Abstract = {Pharmacogenetic testing holds great promise to improve
             health outcomes and reduce adverse drug responses through
             enhanced selection of therapeutic agents. Since drug
             responses can be manipulated by verbal suggestions, it is of
             particular interest to understand the potential impact of
             pharmacogenetic test results on drug response. Placebo and
             nocebo-like effects may be possible due to the suggestive
             nature of pharmacogenetic information that a drug will or
             will not likely lead to improved health outcomes. For
             example, pharmacogenetic testing could provide further
             reassurance to patients that a given drug will be effective
             and/or cause minimal side effects. However, pharmacogenetic
             information could adversely affect drug response through
             negative expectations that a drug will be less than
             optimally effective or cause an adverse response, known as a
             nocebo-like effect. Therefore, a patient's perceived value
             of testing, their understanding of the test results, and the
             manner in which they are communicated may influence
             therapeutic outcome. As such, physicians should consider the
             potential effect of pharmacogenetic test results on
             therapeutic outcome when communicating results to patients.
             Studies are needed to investigate the impact of
             pharmacogenetic information of therapeutic
             outcome.},
   Doi = {10.1159/000189628},
   Key = {fds301346}
}

@article{fds301344,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Burke, W},
   Title = {Pharmacogenetic testing: not as simple as it
             seems.},
   Journal = {Genet Med},
   Volume = {10},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {391-395},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18496219},
   Abstract = {Pharmacogenetics has the potential to help guide treatment
             decisions by tailoring appropriate drugs and dosages to
             patients most likely to benefit. This straightforward
             clinical goal has led some to suggest that pharmacogenetic
             testing is free of ethical concerns. However, a number of
             potential risks and clinical uncertainties arise in
             considering the use of these new tools in clinical care. We
             propose a classification of pharmacogenetic tests to
             identify and prioritize the policy issues that will need to
             be addressed to ensure appropriate delivery of
             pharmacogenetic testing. We use the classification framework
             to consider the benefits and risks associated with ancillary
             information, timing of testing, and storage and retrieval of
             pharmacogenetic test results among health professionals.
             These issues have implications for informed consent and
             genetic counseling requirements, and for the role of health
             professionals.},
   Doi = {10.1097/GIM.0b013e31817701d4},
   Key = {fds301344}
}

@article{fds301343,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Willard, HF},
   Title = {Letting the genome out of the bottle.},
   Journal = {N Engl J Med},
   Volume = {358},
   Number = {20},
   Pages = {2184},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {May},
   ISSN = {0028-4793},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc086053},
   Doi = {10.1056/NEJMc086053},
   Key = {fds301343}
}

@article{fds301371,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Beskow, LM},
   Title = {Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for
             genetics research.},
   Journal = {Adv Genet},
   Volume = {60},
   Pages = {505-544},
   Year = {2008},
   ISSN = {0065-2660},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18358331},
   Abstract = {The elucidation of the causes of complex diseases pivots on
             understanding the interaction between biological (genetic)
             and environmental factors that give rise to disease risk.
             The modest effects of genetic factors in complex diseases
             supports the need for large-scale studies of high-quality
             human biological materials, paired with detailed clinical
             data, to adequately detect these effects. To this end,
             biobanks or biorepositories have been developed around the
             world, by public and private entities alike, to provide
             researchers the opportunity to study collections of human
             biospecimens annotated with clinical and other
             health-related measurements. It has been estimated that more
             than 270 million tissue samples are stored in the U.S.,
             expanding at a rate of approximately 20 million samples
             annually. In this chapter, we discuss several ethical,
             legal, and social issues that have been raised surrounding
             biobanks, including recruitment of vulnerable populations,
             informed consent, data disclosure to participants,
             intellectual property, and privacy and security. Throughout
             the chapter, we will highlight experiences of national
             biobanks in Iceland, the U.K., Sweden, and Estonia, and the
             proposal for a U.S. population cohort study. The dependence
             on public participation requires clear and transparent
             policies developed through inclusive processes.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0065-2660(07)00418-X},
   Key = {fds301371}
}

@article{fds301372,
   Author = {Silvey, GM and Haga, SB and O'Daniel, JM and Deverka, P and Ermentrout,
             DM and Anstrom, KJ and Lobach, DF},
   Title = {Determining user preferences between touch and pen data
             entry methods in the Tablet PC computing
             environment.},
   Journal = {AMIA Annu Symp Proc},
   Pages = {1115},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18694212},
   Abstract = {Tablet personal computers (PCs) are becoming common in the
             clinical environment. In a recent survey comparing mobile
             devices, the Tablet PC was perceived to have made the most
             significant difference in the delivery of healthcare. As the
             use of Tablet PC technology increases, understanding which
             features are most usable for data entry becomes important.
             The modality used for data entry on the Tablet PC has
             evolved. Initially, most Tablet PCs required the use of a
             stylus or specialized pen for user interaction with the
             system. Recently, touch screen technology has become
             available on the Tablet PCs. Tablet PCs with touch screens
             allow the user to interact with the system using their
             finger instead of a pen. Little information is available is
             available concerning user preferences regarding the modality
             used for data entry on the Tablet PC. In this project we
             assessed the usability of the two data entry modalities by
             directly comparing a pen-based and a touch-based Tablet PC
             through focus groups. This project was part of a Duke IRB
             approved study designed to assess patient attitudes towards
             the clinical use of pharmacogenetic data.},
   Key = {fds301372}
}

@article{fds301341,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Thummel, KE and Burke, W},
   Title = {Adding pharmacogenetics information to drug labels: lessons
             learned.},
   Journal = {Pharmacogenet Genomics},
   Volume = {16},
   Number = {12},
   Pages = {847-854},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {1744-6872},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17108808},
   Abstract = {The US Food and Drug Administration approved a revised
             package insert for two cancer drugs to include information
             about the increased risk of severe adverse events owing to
             enzyme deficiencies caused by genetic variants. The label
             revisions stopped short of recommending or requiring
             pharmacogenetic testing prior to or following an adverse
             event. Despite (or because of) the lack of specific
             recommendations, we believe the actions taken by US Food and
             Drug Administration will have implications for
             pharmacogenetics research, clinical integration, and other
             policy considerations. We review the reasons behind the
             cautious label changes and discuss some of the lessons that
             can be learned from these experiences.},
   Doi = {10.1097/01.fpc.0000236322.88433.ac},
   Key = {fds301341}
}

@article{fds301342,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Willard, HF},
   Title = {Defining the spectrum of genome policy.},
   Journal = {Nat Rev Genet},
   Volume = {7},
   Number = {12},
   Pages = {966-972},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {1471-0056},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17139328},
   Abstract = {Many achievements in the genome sciences have been
             facilitated by policies that have prioritized genome
             research, secured funding and raised public and
             health-professional awareness. Such policies should address
             ethical, legal and social concerns, and are as important to
             the scientific and commercial development of the field as
             the science itself. On occasion, policy issues take
             precedence over science, particularly when impasses are
             encountered or when public health or money is at stake. Here
             we discuss the spectrum of current issues and debates in
             genome policy, and how to actively engage all affected
             stakeholders to promote effective policy
             making.},
   Doi = {10.1038/nrg2003},
   Key = {fds301342}
}

@article{fds301340,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Genomics-based labeling and attribution: a case for
             integrating social sciences into personalized medicine
             research.},
   Journal = {Per Med},
   Volume = {3},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {317-323},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {August},
   ISSN = {1741-0541},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/17410541.3.3.317},
   Abstract = {As the field of genomics uncovers the etiology and
             pathophysiological mechanisms of disease, we will gain a
             greater understanding of the causes of disease, leading to
             preventive interventions, early diagnoses and new and
             improved treatments. Although understanding the specific
             roles of environment and genetics in disease onset and
             development will most likely improve health outcomes, the
             impact of this information for the individual and public
             remains to be seen. Understanding what factors influence
             individual and public perceptions and behavioral
             consequences related to genome-based disease labels and
             attributions will be critical to a successful transition for
             personalized medicine. To better understand the impact of
             genomic-based disease labeling and attribution, social
             scientists need to be involved in clinical genomics studies
             to assess the consequences of the use of and response to new
             personalized diagnoses and treatments.},
   Doi = {10.2217/17410541.3.3.317},
   Key = {fds301340}
}

@article{fds301366,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Ginsburg, GS},
   Title = {Prescribing BiDil: is it black and white?},
   Journal = {J Am Coll Cardiol},
   Volume = {48},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {12-14},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16814642},
   Abstract = {The approval of BiDil as an adjunct treatment in
             self-identified blacks with heart failure raises questions
             regarding the underlying etiology of drug response in this
             target population and the ability to accurately identify
             patients who are most likely to benefit. Preliminary data
             have indicated that differences in nitric oxide synthesis
             between groups may account for differences in response to
             BiDil and genetic studies have begun to elucidate the
             mechanism of these differences. Until more accurate
             selection criteria are developed to identify patients who
             are most likely to benefit, both clinicians and the general
             public will need to consider the unique issues raised by
             BiDil.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.jacc.2006.04.017},
   Key = {fds301366}
}

@article{fds301339,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Teaching resources for genetics.},
   Journal = {Nat Rev Genet},
   Volume = {7},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {223-229},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {March},
   ISSN = {1471-0056},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16462854},
   Abstract = {Genetics education is essential for preparing the public to
             engage in an informed debate about the future of genetics
             research and how its applications affect human health and
             the environment. This article provides an overview of
             genetics education resources that are available online, and
             is relevant to students in secondary education, health
             professionals, geneticists and the public. It also describes
             an integrated approach to teaching genetics, emphasizes the
             need for continuing teacher education, and encourages the
             involvement of geneticists and health professionals in
             providing a teaching resource.},
   Doi = {10.1038/nrg1803},
   Key = {fds301339}
}

@article{fds301365,
   Author = {Ginsburg, GS and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Translating genomic biomarkers into clinically useful
             diagnostics.},
   Journal = {Expert Rev Mol Diagn},
   Volume = {6},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {179-191},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16512778},
   Abstract = {The landmark sequencing of the human genome has ushered in a
             new field of large-scale research. Advances in understanding
             the molecular basis of disease have opened up new
             opportunities to develop genomics-based tools to diagnose,
             predict disease onset or recurrence, tailor treatment
             options, and assess treatment response. Although still in
             the early stages of research and development, genomic
             biomarker research has the capability of providing a
             comprehensive insight into pathophysiological processes as
             well as more precise predictors of outcome not previously
             attainable with traditional biomarkers. Before genomic
             biomarkers are incorporated into clinical practice, several
             issues will need to be addressed in order to generate the
             necessary levels of evidence to demonstrate analytical and
             clinical validity and utility. In addition, efforts will be
             needed to educate health professionals and the public about
             genomics-based tools, revise regulatory oversight
             mechanisms, and ensure privacy safeguards of the information
             generated from these new tests.},
   Doi = {10.1586/14737159.6.2.179},
   Key = {fds301365}
}

@article{fds343218,
   Author = {Rich, EC and Burke, W and Heaton, CJ and Haga, S and Pinsky, L and Short,
             MP and Acheson, L},
   Title = {Erratum: Reconsidering the family history in primary care
             (Journal of General Internal Medicine (2004) 19
             (273-280))},
   Journal = {Journal of General Internal Medicine},
   Volume = {20},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {315},
   Year = {2005},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00bmi.x},
   Doi = {10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00bmi.x},
   Key = {fds343218}
}

@article{fds301338,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Embracing our duty},
   Journal = {American Journal of Human Genetics},
   Volume = {76},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {547},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2005},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0002-9297},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/429097},
   Doi = {10.1086/429097},
   Key = {fds301338}
}

@article{fds301336,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Burke, W},
   Title = {Using pharmacogenetics to improve drug safety and
             efficacy.},
   Journal = {JAMA},
   Volume = {291},
   Number = {23},
   Pages = {2869-2871},
   Year = {2004},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.23.2869},
   Doi = {10.1001/jama.291.23.2869},
   Key = {fds301336}
}

@article{fds301337,
   Author = {Rich, EC and Burke, W and Heaton, CJ and Haga, S and Pinsky, L and Short,
             MP and Acheson, L},
   Title = {Reconsidering the family history in primary
             care.},
   Journal = {J Gen Intern Med},
   Volume = {19},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {273-280},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2004},
   Month = {March},
   ISSN = {0884-8734},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30401.x},
   Abstract = {OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to review the role
             of the family history in predictive genetic testing,
             describe how family history taking is practiced in adult
             primary care, identify the current barriers to appropriate
             application of the family history, and outline the
             requirements for a new family history tool for primary care.
             DESIGN: We reviewed current perspectives on the family
             history, identifying key references in the medical
             literature and web-based family history tools through
             discussions with multiple content experts in clinical
             genetics, family medicine, and internal medicine. We
             conducted a Medline query using the search terms family
             history and primary care to identify references from the
             past 10 years. To illustrate the usefulness of family
             history information, we calculated the predictive value of
             family history and genetic information for familial
             adenomatous polyposis using current references and standard
             formulas. We identified paper and web-based family history
             tools through discussions with content experts. We also
             conducted a search on the World Wide Web to identify
             resources for electronic medical record and family history.
             RESULTS: The family history is the most important tool for
             diagnosis and risk assessment in medical genetics, and
             promises to serve as a critical element in the use of
             predictive genetic testing in primary care. Traditional
             medical education about family history has often been
             unsophisticated and use of family history in adult primary
             care has been limited, compounded by multiple substantive
             barriers. Although there are numerous paper and
             computer-based aides for taking the family history, none
             currently meets all the needs of adult primary care.
             CONCLUSIONS: The patient's family history remains a critical
             element in risk assessment for many conditions, but
             substantive barriers impede application in primary care
             practice, and evidence for its contribution to improved
             health outcomes is limited in this setting. Short of radical
             changes in reimbursement, new tools will be required to aid
             primary care physicians in the efficient collection and
             application of patient family history in the era of genetic
             testing.},
   Doi = {10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30401.x},
   Key = {fds301337}
}

@article{fds301335,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Khoury, MJ and Burke, W},
   Title = {Genomic profiling to promote a healthy lifestyle: not ready
             for prime time.},
   Journal = {Nat Genet},
   Volume = {34},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {347-350},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng0803-347},
   Abstract = {Genomic profiling has the potential to usher in a revolution
             of personalized healthcare and disease prevention. But
             evidence to support genomic profiling is inconsistent, and
             data on the health outcome benefits based on such testing
             are lacking. For genomic profiling to become valid and
             useful, well designed epidemiologic studies and thorough
             clinical evaluations of recommended interventions based on
             genotype are required.},
   Doi = {10.1038/ng0803-347},
   Key = {fds301335}
}

@article{fds301334,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Venter, JC},
   Title = {Genetics. FDA races in wrong direction.},
   Journal = {Science},
   Volume = {301},
   Number = {5632},
   Pages = {466},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1087004},
   Abstract = {Despite recent genetic evidence and the promise of
             individualized medicine, there is a continuing interest in
             using self-identified categories of race and ethnicity as
             variables in scientific and medical research. The U.S. Food
             and Drug Administration recently proposed a standardized
             approach for the collection of race and ethnicity data in
             clinical trials. We believe that this move fails to
             acknowledge new scientific data and recommend that relevant
             data from individuals be collected and used rather than
             broad group statistics. We also encourage that increased
             funding be committed to this important issue.},
   Doi = {10.1126/science.1087004},
   Key = {fds301334}
}

@article{fds301333,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Boughman, JA},
   Title = {The genetics workforce and workload.},
   Journal = {Genet Med},
   Volume = {5},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {55-57},
   Year = {2003},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00125817-200301000-00009},
   Doi = {10.1097/00125817-200301000-00009},
   Key = {fds301333}
}

@article{fds301332,
   Author = {Chase, MB and Fu, S and Haga, SB and Davenport, G and Stevenson, H and Do,
             K and Morgan, D and Mah, AL and Berg, PE},
   Title = {BP1, a homeodomain-containing isoform of DLX4, represses the
             beta-globin gene.},
   Journal = {Mol Cell Biol},
   Volume = {22},
   Number = {8},
   Pages = {2505-2514},
   Year = {2002},
   Month = {April},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MCB.22.8.2505-2514.2002},
   Abstract = {In earlier studies we identified a putative repressor of the
             human beta-globin gene, termed beta protein 1 (BP1), which
             binds to two silencer DNA sequences upstream of the adult
             human beta-globin gene and to a negative control region
             upstream of the adult delta-globin gene. Further studies
             demonstrated an inverse correlation between the binding
             affinity of the BP1 protein for the distal beta-globin
             silencer sequence and the severity of sickle cell anemia,
             suggesting a possible role for BP1 in determining the
             production of hemoglobin S. We have now cloned a cDNA
             expressing the BP1 protein. Sequencing revealed that BP1 is
             a member of the homeobox gene family and belongs to the
             subfamily called Distal-less (DLX), genes important in early
             development. Further analysis showed that BP1 is an isoform
             of DLX4. BP1 protein has repressor function towards the
             beta-globin promoter, acting through the two beta-globin DNA
             silencers, demonstrated in transient transfection assays.
             Strong BP1 expression is restricted to placenta and kidney
             tissue, with no expression in 48 other human tissues. BP1
             exhibits regulated expression in the human erythroid cell
             line MB-02, where its expression decreases upon induction of
             the beta-globin gene. BP1 is thus the first member of the
             DLX family with known DNA binding sites and a function in
             globin gene regulation.},
   Doi = {10.1128/MCB.22.8.2505-2514.2002},
   Key = {fds301332}
}

@article{fds301330,
   Author = {Fu, S and Stevenson, H and Strovel, JW and Haga, SB and Stamberg, J and Do,
             K and Berg, PE},
   Title = {Distinct functions of two isoforms of a homeobox gene, BP1
             and DLX7, in the regulation of the beta-globin
             gene.},
   Journal = {Gene},
   Volume = {278},
   Number = {1-2},
   Pages = {131-139},
   Year = {2001},
   Month = {October},
   ISSN = {0378-1119},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1119(01)00716-8},
   Abstract = {Homeotic proteins are transcription factors that regulate
             the expression of multiple genes involved in development and
             differentiation. We previously isolated a cDNA encoding such
             a protein from the human leukemia cell line K562, termed
             Beta Protein 1 (BP1), which is involved in negative
             regulation of the human beta-globin gene. Sequence
             comparison revealed that BP1 is a member of the distal-less
             (DLX) family of homeobox genes and that it shares its
             homeodomain and 3' sequences with another DLX cDNA, DLX7.
             BP1 and DLX7 exhibit unique 5' regions, diverging at
             nucleotide 565 of BP1. We mapped this new distal-less family
             member BP1 to chromosome 17q21-22 by FISH and PCR, which is
             the same locus to which DLX7 has been mapped. These results
             strongly suggest that BP1 and DLX7 are isoforms (derived
             from the same gene). Since our previous data demonstrated
             that BP1 and DLX7 are frequently co-expressed, we determined
             whether DLX7 is also involved in the negative regulation of
             the beta-globin gene. Mobility shift assays demonstrated
             that both BP1 and DLX7 proteins, synthesized in vitro, bind
             to the same BP1 binding site. However, using transient
             assays, we showed that although BP1 represses activity of a
             reporter gene through either of two silencer DNA sequences
             upstream of the beta-globin gene, DLX7 did not show
             repressor activity against the beta-globin promoter. Further
             characterization of these apparent isoforms is of
             significance since they are jointly expressed in acute
             myeloid leukemia and in many leukemia cell
             lines.},
   Doi = {10.1016/s0378-1119(01)00716-8},
   Key = {fds301330}
}

@article{fds301331,
   Author = {Haga, SB and Fu, S and Karp, JE and Ross, DD and Williams, DM and Hankins,
             WD and Behm, F and Ruscetti, FW and Chang, M and Smith, BD and Becton, D and Raimondi, SC and Berg, PE},
   Title = {BP1, a new homeobox gene, is frequently expressed in acute
             leukemias.},
   Journal = {Leukemia},
   Volume = {14},
   Number = {11},
   Pages = {1867-1875},
   Year = {2000},
   Month = {November},
   ISSN = {0887-6924},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.leu.2401912},
   Abstract = {Aberrant expression of homeobox genes has been described in
             primary leukemia blasts. We recently cloned a new cDNA, BP1,
             which is a member of the homeobox gene family. BP1
             expression was investigated in bone marrow samples from
             acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute T cell lymphocytic
             leukemia (ALL) and pre-B cell ALL. Expression levels of two
             apparent isoforms of BP1, DLX7 and DLX4, were measured in
             the same samples. They are weakly if at all detectable in
             normal bone marrow, PHA-stimulated T cells or B cells. BP1
             RNA was highly expressed in 63% of AML cases, including 81%
             of the pediatric and 47% of the adult cases, and in 32% of
             T-ALL cases, but was not found in any of the pre-B ALL
             cases. Coexpression of BP1, DLX7 and DLX4 occurred in a
             significant number of leukemias. Our data, including
             co-expression of BP1 with c-myb and GATA-1, markers of early
             progenitors, suggest that BP1 expression occurs in primitive
             cells in AML. Analysis of CD34+ and CD34- normal bone marrow
             cells revealed BP1 is expressed in CD34- cells and virtually
             extinguished in CD34+ cells. Ectopic expression of BP1 in
             the leukemia cell line K562 increased clonogenicity,
             consistent with a role for BP1 in leukemogenesis. The
             presence of BP1 RNA in leukemic blasts may therefore be a
             molecular marker for primitive cells and/or may indicate
             that BP1 is an important upstream factor in an oncogenic
             pathway.},
   Doi = {10.1038/sj.leu.2401912},
   Key = {fds301331}
}

@article{fds301329,
   Author = {Chase, MB and Haga, SB and Hankins, WD and Williams, DM and Bi, Z and Strovel, JW and Obriecht, C and Berg, PE},
   Title = {Binding of HMG-I(Y) elicits structural changes in a silencer
             of the human beta-globin gene.},
   Journal = {Am J Hematol},
   Volume = {60},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {27-35},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {1999},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0361-8609},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-8652(199901)60:1<27::aid-ajh6>3.0.co;2-0},
   Abstract = {Proteins involved in repression of the human beta-globin
             gene may be useful in the treatment of sickle cell anemia,
             in conjunction with therapy to reactivate fetal globin
             genes. If there is a reciprocal elevation of gamma-globin
             expression upon repression, this approach could be useful in
             additional hemoglobinopathies. We previously showed that
             repression of the beta-globin gene appears to be mediated
             through two DNA sequences, silencers I and II, and
             identified a protein termed BP1 which binds to both silencer
             sequences. In this study, we cloned two cDNAs encoding
             proteins which bind to an oligonucleotide in silencer I
             containing a BP1 binding site. These cDNAs correspond to
             HMG-I and HMG-Y, isoforms regarded as architectural
             proteins. We demonstrate that binding of HMG-I(Y) to this
             oligonucleotide causes bending/flexure of the DNA. HMG-I(Y)
             also binds to a second oligonucleotide containing a BP1
             binding site located in a negative control region upstream
             of the delta-globin gene, suggesting a role for HMG-I(Y) in
             repression of adult globin genes. Expression studies
             revealed that HMG-I(Y) is ubiquitously expressed in human
             tissues that do not express beta-globin, being present in 48
             of 50 tissues and six hematopoietic cell lines examined.
             Furthermore, HMG-I(Y) expression is down-regulated during
             differentiation of primary erythroid cells. We present a
             model in which HMG-I(Y) alters DNA conformation to allow
             binding of repressor proteins, and in which the relative
             amount of HMG-I(Y) helps to determine the repressive state
             of the beta-globin gene.},
   Doi = {10.1002/(sici)1096-8652(199901)60:1<27::aid-ajh6>3.0.co;2-0},
   Key = {fds301329}
}


%% Chapters in Books   
@misc{fds371133,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Precision medicine: Overview and challenges to clinical
             implementation},
   Pages = {513-529},
   Booktitle = {Principles of Gender-Specific Medicine: Sex and
             Gender-Specific Biology in the Postgenomic
             Era},
   Year = {2023},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9780323885348},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-88534-8.00020-1},
   Abstract = {Precision medicine pivots on the integration of patients’
             individual data including genetic and genomic data, digital
             health measures, and social health factors, for the
             prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Initially
             referred to as personalized medicine, the field (and its
             name) have evolved to encompass a wide range of measures to
             enable delivery of more precise healthcare. As the range and
             scope of technologies have expanded, so too have the
             challenges to analyze, develop evidence-based guidelines and
             promote routine utilization of treatment. With respect to
             genetics and genomics, precision medicine is moving from a
             single test or type of data like a gene sequence to
             large-scale assessments of molecular-based changes that are
             impacted by and can impact the macro- and microenvironment,
             including the those of both the host genome and that of the
             microbiome. Several areas of research are actively under
             investigation that have revealed sex-specific differences
             and new clues about human health and disease. These areas of
             research and ensuing clinical applications raise a host of
             issues that will need to be addressed to enable the
             successful and timely transition the clinic. This chapter
             aims to provide an overview of genome sciences, examples of
             clinical applications, and challenges related to clinical
             implementation.},
   Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-323-88534-8.00020-1},
   Key = {fds371133}
}

@misc{fds348799,
   Author = {Ginsburg, GS and Haga, SB},
   Title = {Foundations and application of precision
             medicine},
   Pages = {21-45},
   Booktitle = {Emery and Rimoin's Principles and Practice of Medical
             Genetics and Genomics: Foundations},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9780128126851},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812537-3.00002-0},
   Abstract = {The goal of precision medicine is to optimize disease
             prevention, diagnosis, and treatment decision-making through
             the assimilation and analysis of multiple types of data
             including both genotypic (DNA variation) and phenotypic
             measures (traditional clinical biomarkers, gene expression,
             and metabolite profile). Successful integration of new data
             and analytical methods will pivot on a robust and secure
             clinical infrastructure, electronic medical records and
             digital health technologies. Precision medicine may be
             integrated into public health surveillance, preventive care,
             and diagnosis. This chapter provides an overview and
             examples to date that have contributed to the rise of
             precision medicine and highlight areas where effort is
             needed to realize the full potential of these
             applications.},
   Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-12-812537-3.00002-0},
   Key = {fds348799}
}

@misc{fds333811,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Precision Medicine and Challenges in Research and Clinical
             Implementation},
   Pages = {717-732},
   Booktitle = {Principles of Gender-Specific Medicine: Gender in the
             Genomic Era: Third Edition},
   Publisher = {Elsevier},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {May},
   ISBN = {9780128035061},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803506-1.00021-8},
   Abstract = {The personalized medicine movement pivots on the integration
             of patients' genetic and genomic data for prevention,
             diagnosis, and treatment. However, it does not refer to a
             single test or type of data like a gene sequence, but rather
             assessment of a range of molecular-based changes that are
             impacted by and can impact the macro-and micro-environment.
             At this point in time, several areas of research are
             actively under investigation, yielding new clues about human
             health and disease, and informing development of new
             clinical interventions. These areas of research and clinical
             applications also raise a host of issues that will need to
             be addressed to enable the continued pace of research and
             clinical implementation. This chapter aims to provide an
             overview of several areas of research that are driving the
             personalized medicine movement as well as some of the
             ethical, legal, and clinical issues that have been
             raised.},
   Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-12-803506-1.00021-8},
   Key = {fds333811}
}

@misc{fds339309,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Overview of Policy, Ethical, and Social Considerations in
             Genomic and Personalized Medicine},
   Pages = {19-43},
   Booktitle = {Genomic and Precision Medicine: Primary Care: Third
             Edition},
   Publisher = {Elsevier},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {March},
   ISBN = {9780128006856},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800685-6.00005-9},
   Abstract = {Genomics has significantly advanced our understanding of
             human populations and disease, enabling development of
             improved predictive and diagnostic tools. The integration of
             genomic medicine into routine clinical practice will require
             careful consideration and potential revisions of current
             policies pertaining to the conduct of genomics research and
             practice of personalized medicine. In addition, enhanced
             awareness and knowledge of the principles and practices of
             genomic medicine will be needed among all stakeholders,
             including healthcare practitioners, policymakers, patients,
             and the general public.},
   Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-12-800685-6.00005-9},
   Key = {fds339309}
}

@misc{fds302566,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Overview of Policy, Ethical and Social Considerations in
             Genomic and Personalized Medicine},
   Volume = {1},
   Pages = {392-404},
   Booktitle = {Genomic and Personalized Medicine},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {August},
   ISBN = {9780123822277},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382227-7.00034-3},
   Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-12-382227-7.00034-3},
   Key = {fds302566}
}

@misc{fds355091,
   Author = {Cho, A and Vorderstrasse, A and Suchindran, S and Lucas, J and Scott,
             WM and Bembe, M and Baker, D and Haga, SB and Orlando, L and Trujillo, GM and Joy, SV and Ginsburg, GS},
   Title = {T2D Genetic Risk Counseling & Testing in Primary
             Care},
   Journal = {DIABETES},
   Volume = {62},
   Pages = {A196-A196},
   Publisher = {AMER DIABETES ASSOC},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {July},
   Key = {fds355091}
}

@misc{fds367039,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Overview of Policy, Ethical and Social Considerations in
             Genomic and Personalized Medicine},
   Pages = {392-404},
   Booktitle = {Genomic and Personalized Medicine},
   Year = {2012},
   Month = {November},
   ISBN = {9780123822277},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382227-7.00034-3},
   Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-12-382227-7.00034-3},
   Key = {fds367039}
}

@misc{fds302565,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {Genome Policy Considerations for Genomic
             Medicine},
   Pages = {209-222},
   Booktitle = {Essentials of Genomic and Personalized Medicine},
   Publisher = {Elsevier},
   Year = {2010},
   Month = {December},
   ISBN = {9780123749345},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374934-5.00018-0},
   Abstract = {This chapter provides an overview of the major policy issues
             pertaining to research, development, and translation of
             genomic medicine applications. The issues include research
             allocation and prioritization, uses and analyses of race in
             genome studies, ethical issues linked to large-scale genome
             efforts, privacy and discrimination, and enhancing public
             and professional awareness. The genetic etiology of common,
             complex diseases and development of high-throughput
             technologies at increasingly cheaper costs have enabled the
             expansion of study populations in genomic studies. Whereas
             genetic studies traditionally focused on small groups,
             genomics studies are characterized by the collection of
             genetic data on hundreds or thousands of individuals. The
             demand for DNA samples from individuals of various
             phenotypes has led to the creation of local and national
             biobanks or biorepositories worldwide. Given the enormity of
             national biobanks, several policy issues arise, particularly
             with respect to research policy. The considerations include
             scientific need and merit, cost and feasibility, required
             infrastructure, accessibility to samples and data, informed
             consent, intellectual property (IP), privacy and
             confidentiality of data, and disclosure of research results
             to participants. While current policies may be applicable to
             some of these issues as they are not unique to biobanks, new
             policies are required to address some of the considerations
             such as data sharing and data disclosure. © 2010 Copyright
             © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-12-374934-5.00018-0},
   Key = {fds302565}
}

@misc{fds302564,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {From Sequence to Genomic Medicine: Genome Policy
             Considerations},
   Pages = {387-400},
   Booktitle = {Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Two-Vol
             Set},
   Publisher = {Elsevier},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {December},
   ISBN = {9780123694201},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-369420-1.00033-0},
   Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-12-369420-1.00033-0},
   Key = {fds302564}
}

@misc{fds367040,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {From Sequence to Genomic Medicine: Genome Policy
             Considerations},
   Pages = {388-400},
   Booktitle = {GENOMIC AND PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, VOL 1},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds367040}
}

@misc{fds367041,
   Author = {Haga, SB},
   Title = {From Sequence to Genomic Medicine: Genome Policy
             Considerations},
   Pages = {387-400},
   Booktitle = {Genomic and Personalized Medicine: V1-2},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {November},
   ISBN = {9780123694201},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-369420-1.00033-0},
   Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-12-369420-1.00033-0},
   Key = {fds367041}
}