RESUMEN
As highlighted by public reactions to accidents at nuclear plants in the past, such as those that occurred in Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011), and from numerous opinion surveys, there are considerable differences or gaps between how the public and radiation experts perceive the risks from radiation. Even within the community of experts, radiation risk perception differences can be present. The reasons for differences in radiation risk perceptions between the public and experts are complex and involve sociological, ethical and behavioural aspects of society. This presents significant challenges to authorities in trying to improve radiation risk communications targeted at the public within the context of radiation emergency preparedness planning. Of particular importance is to make the communications more citizen-centred than heretofore by having meaningful two-way communications and dialogue with the public. It is emphasised that such strategies should take into account and address the significant mental health and socio-economic impacts of such accidents on affected populations. In particular, the mental health impacts are inadequately addressed by current international radiation protection recommendations reflecting their long established emphasis only on physical health effects. This approach is no longer acceptable or justified.
Asunto(s)
Accidente Nuclear de Chernóbil , Defensa Civil , Accidente Nuclear de Fukushima , Protección Radiológica , Plantas de Energía Nuclear , Salud Mental , JapónRESUMEN
Background: As pharmacogenomic services begin to emerge in primary care, the insight of the public is crucial for its integration into clinical practice. Objectives: To establish perceptions of pharmacogenomics (awareness, understanding, openness to availability, perceived benefits and concerns, willingness to pay, and service setting) and investigate if they differ between those with and without chronic disease(s). Methods: An anonymous, online questionnaire generated using Qualtrics® and circulated via social media and posters placed in eight participating community pharmacies was conducted with Irish adults. The questions were designed to consider existing literature on patient perceptions of pharmacogenomics. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize questionnaire responses. Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables, while independent sample t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to compare the mean values of two (with and without chronic disease) and three groups (multimorbidity (two or more chronic conditions) and polypharmacy (prescribed four or more regular medicines) (MMPP), a single chronic disease, and those without existing medical conditions) respectively Logistic regression was used to evaluate age and gender adjusted associations of chronic disease(s) with responses. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 421 responses were received, 30% (n = 120) of whom reported having a chronic disease. Overall, respondents reported low awareness (44%, n = 166) and poor knowledge (55%, n = 212) of pharmacogenomics. After explaining pharmacogenomics to respondents, patients with chronic disease(s) were 2.17 times more likely (p < 0.001) to want pharmacogenomic services availability than those without existing conditions, adjusted for age and gender (driven by preferences of those with MMPP than those with single chronic disease). Respondents demonstrated a high level of interest and noted both the potential benefits and downsides of pharmacogenomic testing. Willingness-to-pay was not associated with having a chronic disease and respondents were more positive about primary care (community pharmacy or general practice) rather than hospital-based pharmacogenomics implementation. Conclusion: The Irish public in general and those with chronic disease in particular are strongly supportive of pharmacogenomic testing, highlighting an unmet need for its incorporation in medicines optimization. These data underline the need for more research on the implementation of community-based pharmacogenomics services for MMPP patients and ubiquitous pharmacogenomics education programs.