F1000Research F1000Research 2046-1402 F1000 Research Limited London, UK 10.12688/f1000research.163687.2 Research Article Articles Personalized Care in the UAE : A Study on Precision Medicine Awareness and Accessibility among the general population

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved]

 Myalil Lucca Jisha Conceptualization Formal Analysis Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Supervision Validation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9878-7443 a 1 Salama Alhammadi Conceptualization Data Curation Methodology Writing – Original Draft Preparation 1 Abdalla Basant Data Curation Methodology Writing – Original Draft Preparation 1 Baby Jeswin Formal Analysis Resources Software Validation Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 2 College of pharmacy, Gulf medical university, Ajman, United Arab Emirates Caritas Hospital & Institute of Health Sciences, Kottayam, Kerala, India dr.jmlucca@gmu.ac.ae

No competing interests were disclosed.

 24 1 2026 2025 14 632 7 1 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Myalil Lucca J et al. 2026 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Background

Precision medicine is an emerging approach that tailors treatments based on an individual’s genetic profile. The UAE has made significant strides in this field through initiatives like the National Genomics Strategy and the Emirati Genome Program. However, public awareness and engagement remain key challenges.

 Purpose

This study assesses awareness, acceptance, and utilization of precision medicine among UAE residents.

 Methods

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted using a snowball sampling method. The survey collected demographic data, health status, knowledge, and experiences with precision medicine. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to analyze associations.

 Results

Most participants (94.3%) were under 50 years old, 62.5% were female, and 60.0% held a bachelor’s degree. Awareness of precision medicine was moderate (55.3%), with higher familiarity among females and students. While 40% believed its main benefit was optimizing drug effectiveness, 38.5% viewed it as crucial for preventing adverse drug reactions. Family and friends (29.5%) were the primary sources of information, yet 25.5% had never heard of precision medicine. Awareness of insurance coverage was low, with 59.0% uncertain about their policy. Genetic testing participation was associated with education level (p < 0.05). Acceptance of precision medicine was higher among individuals with chronic illnesses (p = 0.004). Familiarity scores varied significantly by occupation (p < 0.001) and income (p = 0.004), with higher-income individuals showing greater awareness. Males had a broader range of practice scores (p = 0.003), and individuals with chronic conditions were more aware of precision medicine (p = 0.023).

 Conclusion

Despite advancements, public engagement with precision medicine remains limited. Targeted educational initiatives, improved accessibility, and increased awareness of insurance coverage may enhance adoption and utilization.

 Precision Medicine Pharmacogenomics Genetic Testing Public Awareness UAE The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Amendments from Version 1

This revised version incorporates substantial improvements based on reviewer feedback. The manuscript has been extensively edited for grammar, clarity, and terminological precision, with consistent and clearly defined use of key concepts such as precision medicine, personalized medicine, and pharmacogenomics. The introduction and discussion have been strengthened by adding international studies.  Major methodological enhancements were incorporated. Recruitment procedures, including steps taken to minimize duplicate responses, are now clearly described. A comprehensive Limitations section has been added, acknowledging sampling bias associated with snowball sampling, limited representativeness, and potential measurement error due to low baseline awareness. The Results and Discussion sections were revised to ensure accurate interpretation. Overstated claims and misleading trends (e.g., near-significant findings) have been corrected. Medians are now reported with full scale ranges and IQRs, and all p values follow a consistent reporting style.  Finally, the Conclusions were refined to better reflect the exploratory nature of the study, emphasizing “limited to modest awareness” rather than broadly positive perceptions. The manuscript has also been aligned with STROBE guidelines to improve overall reporting quality and methodological rigor.

 Introduction

Precision medicine, a novel approach in healthcare, provides an optimized, targeted treatment to individual patients based on genetic composition, environmental factors, and lifestyle. 1, 2 It represents a revolutionary change in the treatment of rare and difficult to treat diseases by replacing the conventional one-size-fits-all treatment approach. 3 According to FDA “Personalized medicine, sometimes called individualized or precision medicine, is an evolving field in which physicians use diagnostic tests to determine which medical treatments will work best for each patient or use medical interventions to alter molecular mechanisms that impact health. By combining data from diagnostic tests with an individual’s medical history, circumstances, and values, healthcare providers can develop targeted treatment and prevention plans with their patients.” 4 The main aim of precision medicine is to pair the treatment with unique characteristics of each patient and to enhance the safety and efficacy of medications. Beyond cancer treatment, precision medicine impacts extend in treating asthma, infectious diseases, connective tissue diseases, cardiovascular diseases, obesity and diabetes. 2, 3, 5, 6 Precision medicine have been shown to decrease the healthcare expenses and minimize physicians’ burden, foster more personalized patient care. 7 According to the FDA precision medicine report in 2022 a total of 12 new drugs identified as personalized medicines and 5 new gene or cell-based therapies were approved. 4

The healthcare system in the Middle East is progressively advancing toward the integration of precision and genomic medicine into clinical practice. By implementing genetic medicine, the Middle East can prioritize the treatment of high prevalence chronic diseases, rare genetic and orphan disorders in the region. 8 Precision medicine market in the Middle East and Africa is set to expand at CAGR of 9.96 percent to a revenue worth of US$2.51 billion by 2023. 9 From 2023 to 2028, the precision medicine market in the MEA region is expected to expand at an average CAGR of 11.32%. Due to the market’s size, it is expected to increase from USD 4.98 billion in 2023 to USD 8.52 billion by 2028. 9

In March 2023, UAE launched a national genomics strategy to enhance the advancement of preventive medicine in the country. The Emirati Genome Program is a foundational project within the National Genome Strategy, which aims to use genomic data to enhance public health among UAE nationals. 10, 11 The first Personalized Precision Medicine Program for oncology was launched by the Abu Dhabi Department of Health. 10, 11 The main goal of the program is to provide healthcare professionals with high-quality information that will enable them to offer advanced diagnostics, customized treatment options, and prevention programs that are tailored to each individual’s unique genetic composition. 10, 11 It will also help in the development of innovative treatments for uncommon and chronic illnesses as well as improved prediction and prevention of current and future genetic diseases.

Recent research in the UAE and globally underscores both positive receptivity to precision medicine and significant gaps in awareness, capacity, and infrastructure that continue to limit accessibility. For example, a national survey among community pharmacists in the UAE reported moderate knowledge levels, with a mean score of 75.1%, highlighting the need for further education and training in this area. 12 Similarly, a study among medical and health sciences students found that knowledge of pharmacogenomics was generally fair and strongly influenced by factors such as year of study and prior exposure to formal training programs. 13, 14 Broader surveys across healthcare workers in the UAE have also revealed that, despite recognizing the potential benefits of genetic testing and personalized therapies, many still encounter barriers including cost, lack of provider education, and concerns around ethical and privacy issues. 14 These findings emphasize that while the foundation for precision medicine in the UAE is promising, considerable efforts are still required to strengthen knowledge, address structural barriers, and ensure equitable access to its benefits.

Recent healthcare initiatives in the UAE reflect an increasing focus on the adoption of advanced technologies and the integration of precision medicine to enhance individualized treatment approaches. The government has launched a new program and services to its residents. However, there is limited information on public perception and acceptance of this new branch of medicine.

Therefore, this study aims to understand the awareness and acceptance of the public on precision medicine. Additionally, we aim to determine the extent of utilization pattern of precision medicine services among the general population in the country.

 Methods Study design and participants

A population-based cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire, distributed across multiple platforms, including university mailing lists, social media groups, and professional networks. Participants were invited to access the questionnaire link after receiving a brief description of the study. Both Arabic and English versions of the questionnaire were made available through Google Forms. The study commenced only after receiving IRB approval (Ref. no. IRB-COP-STD-3-JULY-2024). Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained electronically prior to enrollment. UAE residents aged 18 years or older were eligible, and an eligibility check was implemented within the online tool. Participants were also given the option to share the questionnaire link on their social media platforms to increase reach.

 Questionnaire development and validation

The questionnaire was adapted from previous studies 12, 15, 16 and modified in consultation with community and hospital pharmacists to ensure alignment with the study objectives and the local context. It was initially prepared in English and translated into Arabic using a forward–backward translation method to ensure linguistic and conceptual equivalence. A panel of five experts, including two university professors, two pharmacy students, and a community pharmacist familiar with the study objectives, reviewed the questionnaire for content and face validity. The instrument was further piloted with members of the general public to assess clarity, ease of understanding, and comprehensiveness, and feedback was incorporated accordingly. The final questionnaire consisted of 22 items across five sections: demographics (7 items), current health status (3 items), knowledge of precision medicine (2 items), acceptance of precision medicine (2 items), and utilization patterns of precision medicine services (8 items).

 Key constructs and scoring

Familiarity/knowledge of precision medicine was defined as participants’ self-reported awareness and understanding of core concepts, including genetic testing, pharmacogenetics, targeted therapy, and precision medicine itself. This was assessed using four Likert-scale items ranging from 1 (“Not familiar”) to 5 (“Extremely familiar”), and responses were summed to generate a total score ranging from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater knowledge. Acceptance of precision medicine captured participants’ willingness to adopt personalized medicine approaches, measured using Likert-scale items (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) addressing perceived value, willingness to use, and comfort with precision medicine; summed item scores reflected overall acceptance. Perceived benefits represented participants’ recognition of advantages such as improved treatment effectiveness, reduced adverse outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and early disease detection, assessed via multiple-choice and Likert-scale items, with higher composite scores indicating stronger perceived benefits. Preferences for pharmacogenetic testing measured interest in undergoing testing, using Likert-scale items from 1 (“Not at all interested”) to 5 (“Extremely interested”), with higher scores reflecting greater preference. Finally, utilization or practice of precision medicine captured actual engagement, including prior genetic testing, discussions with healthcare providers, or use of precision medicine services; responses were coded as 0 (“I don’t know”), 1 (“No”), and 2 (“Yes”), and summed across items to generate a total score (range 0–6), with higher scores indicating more active engagement.

To minimize duplicate responses, the Google Forms “one response per device” restriction was enabled, and entries with identical IP addresses or missing consent were excluded during data cleaning. Internal consistency was assessed to ensure reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.852 for the knowledge section and 0.855 for the utilization section, indicating high reliability.

Scoring methods for knowledge, acceptance, and practice were developed based on previously published research on awareness and perceptions of precision medicine. 17, 18 Each domain comprised Likert-scale items, with composite scores generated by summing individual responses within each category. Higher scores reflected greater knowledge, higher acceptance, and more favorable practice behaviors toward precision medicine.

Participants were given the option to complete the questionnaire in either Arabic or English to accommodate language preferences and improve response rates. This comprehensive approach ensured the questionnaire’s validity, reliability, and data integrity before its distribution.

 Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics for ordinal or non-normally distributed continuous variables are presented as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR), while categorical variables are reported as frequencies and percentages. The levels of Knowledge, Awareness, and Acceptance of Precision Medicine were assessed. Comparisons of continuous demographic and clinical variables with Knowledge, Awareness, and Acceptance scores were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test, as the data were not normally distributed. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

 Conceptional definitions

Precision Medicine (PM): The use of diagnostic tools and treatments targeted to the needs of the individual patient on the basis of genetic, biomarker, or psychosocial characteristics. PM does not imply the creation of medicines or devices that are unique to a patient, but rather the ability to stratify individuals into groups that differ in their susceptibility to a specific disease or their response to a specific treatment. 1, 11

Personalized Medicine: A synonym to precision medicine. However, “precision medicine” is the preferred term. 1, 11

Pharmacogenomics: The use of genomic information to inform prescription or avoidance of pharmaceuticals. 1, 11

Results

A total of 402 individuals participated in the survey, with 400 completing it after excluding responses with missing data. The majority of participants were younger adults (n = 377, 94.3%) and had education levels above high school (n = 282, 70.5%), with most holding a bachelor’s degree (n = 240, 60.0%). Monthly household income varied with 123 participants (30.8%) earning between 5,000–30,000 AED, while 106 (26.5%) preferred not to disclose their income. A total of 60 participants (15.0%) reported having one or more chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, or asthma. Among these, 73 participants (18.3%) reported taking at least one medication daily. Detailed demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Demographic details of the study participants.
Variables n %
Gender
 Female 256 64.0%
 Male 144 36.0%
Age
 <50 Years 377 94.3%
 >=50 Years 23 5.8%
Education
 Primary degree 12 3.0%
 High school degree 106 26.5%
 Undergraduate/Bachelor degree 240 60.0%
 Post graduate/Master 37 9.3%
 Doctorate 5 1.3%
Occupation
 Unemployed 31 7.8%
 Student 191 47.8%
 Employed 152 38.0%
 Retired/Stay at home parent 26 6.5%
Annual household income per month
 Less than 5,000 AED 52 13.0%
 More than 5,000 to less than 30,000 AED 123 30.8%
 More than 30,000 to less than 60,000 AED 84 21.0%
 Above 60,000 AED 35 8.8%
 Prefer not to say 106 26.5%
Chronic Diseases
 No 340 85.0%
 Yes 60 15.0%
Medications/day
 >5 6 1.5%
 0 276 69.0%
 1 73 18.3%
 2 to 4 45 11.3%
Knowledge and familiarity with key terminologies in precision medicine

The majority were slightly or somewhat familiar with terms such as “genetic testing” (61.8%), “precision medicine” (55.3%), “pharmacogenetics” (59.3%), and “targeted therapy” (51.5%). However, a notable proportion of participants reported being not familiar with these terms, ranging from 20.3% to 33.8%. Only a small percentage (12.3%–18.0%) indicated moderate or extreme familiarity. Details Participants’ familiarity with key precision medicine terminologies given in Figure 1.

Participants' familiarity with key precision medicine terminologies. Sources of information on precision medicine

Most participants (n = 154, 38.5%) identified family and friends as their primary source of information about precision medicine, followed by the internet and websites (n = 96, 24%). In contrast, a notable proportion of participants (n = 130, 32.5%) stated that they had never heard of precision medicine. Details are presented in Figure 2.

Sources of information on precision medicine. Perceived benefits of precision medicine

As shown in Figure 3, 160 (40%) of participants considered precision medicine main benefit is to be effective treatment, while 154 (38.5%) believed it could play a crucial role in early disease identification and prevention. For 72 (18%) of respondents, the key purpose was cheaper treatment, and 97 (24.3%) reported that it was valuable for safe treatment. However, 119 (29.8%) of participants were unsure about the specific benefits.

Perceived benefits of precision medicine. Perceptions of insurance coverage for precision medicine among participants

Figure 4 illustrates the limited awareness and uncertainty regarding insurance coverage for precision medicine. A majority of participants, 236 (59.0%), were unsure if their insurance coverage was sufficient, while 83 (20.8%) believed it was inadequate, and 81 (20.3%) reported that it was sufficient. Regarding challenges in obtaining insurance coverage for precision medicine treatments, 222 (55.5%) participants were uncertain, 132 (33.0%) had not faced any difficulties, and 46 (11.5%) had encountered issues, indicating potential barriers to access.

Perceptions of insurance coverage for precision medicine among participants. Exploring participants’ engagement in genetic testing

The data indicate that most participants have limited experience or engagement with genetic testing and precision medicine. Regarding prior experience with genetic testing, 224 (56.0%) reported having no experience. In terms of discussions with doctors about genetic testing or related treatments, 222 (55.5%) had not had such conversations. Concerning the utilization of precision medicine services by themselves or their families, 192 (48.0%) had not used such services, 147 (36.8%) were uncertain, and 61 (15.3%) reported having utilized these services. Additionally, 179 (44.8%) participants were unsure about their engagement with information on precision medicine and genetic testing, 147 (36.8%) had not engaged with any information, and 74 (18.5%) had actively sought such information. These findings suggest that public awareness and engagement with precision medicine remain limited, highlighting the need for targeted education and outreach initiatives ( Table 2).

Prior experience with genetic testing.
Prior Experience with Genetic Testing I don’t know 123 30.8%
No 224 56.0%
Yes 53 13.3%
Prior Discussions with Doctors About genetic testing or medication I don’t know 119 29.8%
No 222 55.5%
Yes 59 14.8%
Utilization of Precision Medicine Services by Their Families I don’t know 147 36.8%
No 192 48.0%
Yes 61 15.3%
Engagement with Information on Precision Medicine and Genetic Testing I don’t know 179 44.8%
No 147 36.8%
Yes 74 18.5%
Demographic variables vs knowledge

Table 3, Gender differences in familiarity scores were not statistically significant (p = 0.056), with both females and males showing a median score of 8 (IQR: females 7–11, males 6–11). Age and education level did not show a significant association (p =0.419 and p = 0.327, respectively), occupation showed a strong association with familiarity (p < 0.001), with students having the highest median score (9, IQR: 8,12), indicating greater awareness, possibly due to academic exposure. Annual household income was significantly associated with familiarity (p = 0.004), with higher-income individuals (>60,000 AED) and those who preferred not to disclose their income showing the highest familiarity scores (10, IQR: 7,12). Those in the lowest income category (<5,000 AED) had a lower median familiarity (8, IQR: 5,10), indicating that economic factors may influence awareness levels.

Demographic influences on knowledge about precision medicine.
Variables Knowledge about precision medicine [Median (IQR)] P value
Gender
 Female 8 (7,11) 0.056 *
 Male 8 (6,11)
Age
 <=50 Years 8 (7,11) 0.468 *
 >50 Years 8 (6,10)
Education
 Primary degree 8 (7,8) 0.431 #
 High school degree 8 (7,10)
 Undergraduate/Bachelor degree 8 (7,12)
 Post graduate/Master 8 (7,12)
 Doctorate 6 (5,9)
Occupation
 Unemployed 8 (6,12) <0.001 #
 Student 9 (8,12)
 Employed 8 (6,9.5)
 Stay at home parent/Retired 7.5 (6,9)
Annual household income per month
 Less than 5,000 AED 8 (5,10) 0.004 #
 More than 5,000 to less than 30,000 AED 8 (7,11)
 More than 30,000 to less than 60,000 AED 8 (7,8)
 Above 60,000 AED 8 (7,12)
 Prefer not to say 10 (7,12)
Chronic Diseases
 No 8(6,11) 0.414 *
 Yes 8(7,11.5)

Note:

Indicates p value from Man-Whitney U test.

Indicates p value from Kruskal Wallis Test.

 Demographic variables vs acceptances of precision medicine

Table 4 evaluates the acceptance of precision medicine based on a combined score derived from perceptions of healthcare outcome improvements and preferences for pharmacogenetic testing. The total acceptance score ranged from 1 to 5 for each item, with higher scores indicating greater acceptance. Across all demographic groups, the median acceptance score was 5 (neutral) on the 1–5 scale, indicating a generally neutral to slightly positive stance toward precision medicine.

Overall, gender, age, education, occupation, and income did not show strong associations with acceptance, while chronic health conditions showed a statistically significant association with acceptance (p = 0.004). Individuals with chronic illnesses have a higher median score (6, IQR: 5,7) compared to those without (5, IQR: 4,6). This suggests that those managing chronic diseases may be more receptive to precision medicine, potentially due to a greater perceived need for personalized treatment options. This suggests that individuals managing chronic diseases may be more receptive to precision medicine, potentially due to a greater perceived need for personalized treatment options.

Demographic influences on acceptances of precision medicine.
Acceptance of precision medicine [Median (IQR)] P value
Gender
 Female 5 (4,6) 0.975 *
 Male 5 (4,6)
Age
 <=50 Years 5 (4,6) 0.490 *
 >50 Years 5 (5,6)
Education
 Primary degree 5 (3.5,6) 0.339 #
 High school degree 5 (4,6)
 Undergraduate/Bachelor degree 5 (4,6)
 Post graduate/Master 6 (4,6)
 Doctorate 5 (4,5)
Occupation
 Unemployed 4 (3,6) 0.170 #
 Student 5 (4,6)
 Employed 5 (4,6)
 Stay at home parent/Retired 5 (4,6)
Annual household income per month
 Less than 5,000 AED 5 (4,7) 0.237 #
 More than 5,000 to less than 30,000 AED 5 (4,6)
 More than 30,000 to less than 60,000 AED 5 (4,6)
 Above 60,000 AED 5 (4,6)
 Prefer not to say 5 (4,6)
Chronic diseases
 No 5 (4,6) 0.004 *
 Yes 6 (5,7)

Note:

Indicates p value from Man-Whitney U test.

Indicates p value from Kruskal Wallis Test.

 Demographic vs practice of precision medicine

Table 5 reports the variation in practice of precision medicine scores across different demographic and socioeconomic groups. Gender showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.003), with females having a median score of 3 (IQR: 0,3) compared to males with a slightly higher range (3, IQR: 2,4), suggesting that males may have a broader practice distribution. Occupation, age and education was not significantly associated with practice scores. However, annual household income showed a highly significant association (p < 0.001), and detailed analysis indicates that individuals with an annual income between 30,000 and 60,000 AED (0, IQR: 0, 3) had lower levels of practice regarding precision medicine compared to those earning less than 5,000 AED (3, IQR: 2.5,3) and between 5,000 and 30,000 AED (3, IQR: 0,4). Lastly, chronic health conditions were significantly associated with awareness (p = 0.023), as individuals with such conditions had a higher median (3, IQR: 2,4) compared to those without (3, IQR: 0,3), implying that personal health experiences may contribute to greater awareness of precision medicine.

Demographic influences on practices of precision medicine.
Practices of precision medicine [Median (IQR)] P value
Gender
 Female 3 (0,3) 0.003 *
 Male 3 (2,4)
Age
 <=50 Years 3 (0,3) 0.321 *
 >50 Years 3 (2,3)
Education
 Primary degree 3 (0.5,4.5) 0.052 #
 High school degree 3 (0,3)
 Undergraduate/Bachelor degree 3 (2,3)
 Post graduate/Master 3 (2,4)
 Doctorate 2 (2,3)
Occupation
 Unemployed 3 (0,3) 0.332 #
 Student 3 (2,3)
 Employed 3 (0,4)
 Stay at home parent/Retired 3 (2,3)
Annual household income per month
 Less than 5,000 AED 3 (2.5,3) <0.001 #
 More than 5,000 to less than 30,000 AED 3 (1,3)
 More than 30,000 to less than 60,000 AED 0 (0,3)
 Above 60,000 AED 3 (0,4)
 Prefer not to say 3 (2,3)
Chronic disease
 No 3 (0,3) 0.023 *
 Yes 3 (2,4)

Note:

Indicates p value from Man-Whitney U test.

Indicates p value from Kruskal Wallis Test.

 Discussion

This study highlights the public’s awareness, acceptance, and utilization of precision medicine services in the UAE, a country at the forefront of adopting innovative healthcare technologies. The majority of participants were young, with 94.3% aged below 50 years, aligning with the UAE’s population demographics where younger adults constitute a significant portion of the workforce. 19 Additionally, the survey observed a higher proportion of female respondents (64.0%) compared to males (36.0%). Similar gender biases have been noted in health-related surveys globally, where women often exhibit higher participation due to increased engagement in healthcare matters. 20, 21 The survey highlights a highly educated population, with 60% holding undergraduate degrees, and 1.3% having completed doctoral studies. This educational profile is indicative of a population capable of understanding and adopting novel healthcare approaches, such as precision medicine. Among the surveyed participants, 15.0% reported having at least one chronic condition such as diabetes, hypertension, or asthma. This prevalence aligns with national statistics showing a growing burden of chronic diseases in the UAE due to lifestyle factors like sedentary behaviour and dietary habits. 17 Medication use patterns indicate that 18.3% of participants take one medication daily, and only 1.5% reported taking more than five medications. These findings are consistent with studies highlighting polypharmacy trends in older populations, with relatively lower rates among younger demographics. 18

The findings of this study reveal that while participants demonstrated slight familiarity with certain precision medicine terminologies, a significant proportion remained unfamiliar with these terms. This highlights the need for targeted public education and awareness campaigns to address the knowledge gap in precision medicine. In contrast, a study conducted by Edris et al. reported that participants exhibited a positive attitude toward precision medicine and pharmacogenomics research. 16

Similarly, most participants (38.5%) learned about precision medicine through family and friends, emphasizing the role of informal communication in disseminating knowledge. However, in contrast to these findings, Almaazmi et al. 22 reported that social media and family and friends had lower trustworthiness scores in regards to provide the medical information’s. The survey results revealed a positive outlook toward the potential benefits of pharmacogenomic testing, with 40% of participants recognizing its value in optimizing drug effectiveness, and 38.5% highlighting its role in preventing adverse drug reactions. These findings align with the growing body of literature that emphasizes pharmacogenomics’ potential to enhance medication efficacy and reduce adverse outcomes by tailoring treatments to individuals’ genetic profiles. 16

There exists a significant level of uncertainty and limited awareness surrounding insurance coverage for precision medicine among participants. In this study, 59% of participants were unsure about their insurance coverage for precision medicine. These results are consistent with research by Schroll MM et al. 23 who found that insurance coverage and reimbursement were significant barriers to the adoption of precision medicine, particularly for treatments involving genetic testing like cancer.

 Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the use of an online, snowball-sampling method may have introduced selection bias, resulting in an overrepresentation of younger, highly educated, and digitally active participants. Consequently, the findings may not be fully representative of the broader UAE population. Second, as the study relied on self-reported data, responses may be subject to recall and social desirability biases, potentially affecting the accuracy of reported awareness and practices.

Participants’ limited baseline awareness and engagement with precision medicine may have affected their understanding of items related to insurance coverage, potentially introducing measurement error and affecting the construct validity of these responses.

 Conclusion

This study provides exploratory insights into the current state of public awareness, acceptance, and utilization of precision medicine in the UAE. Overall, participants demonstrated limited to modest awareness and engagement in related practices. While some recognized potential benefits, particularly in improving treatment effectiveness and preventing adverse outcomes, substantial gaps remain in understanding the broader applications of precision medicine and its coverage under insurance. Participants with chronic health conditions demonstrated higher acceptance, suggesting a potential perceived need for personalized treatment options.

Given the exploratory nature and the non-representative sample, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. They highlight areas for further research, including evaluating healthcare providers’ perspectives, identifying barriers to adoption, and assessing the impact of public education or awareness initiatives. Such research can help inform strategies to enhance understanding, accessibility, and trust in precision medicine, although broader population-based studies are needed before drawing definitive conclusions.

 Ethics approval statement

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates (IRB Reference No: IRB-COP-STD-3-JULY-2024). This study involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with Declaration of Helsinki.

 Consent statement

Written informed consent was obtained electronically through online checkpoints, where participants indicated their agreement by clicking on confirmatory statements prior to survey completion. Participant data were anonymized to ensure confidentiality and compliance with ethical research guidelines.

 Data availability

Harvard Dataverse “Public awareness on precision medicine”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MNLFUY 24

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0 1.0).

 References Personalized medicine:[cited 2024 Feb 27]. Reference Source Reference Source Strianese O Rizzo F Ciccarelli M : Precision and personalized medicine: how genomic approach improves the management of cardiovascular and neurodegenerative disease. Genes (Basel). 2020 Jul 6;11(7):747. 32640513 10.3390/genes11070747 PMC7397223 Evans W Meslin EM Kai J : Precision medicine—are we there yet? A narrative review of precision medicine’s applicability in primary care. J. Pers. Med. 2024;14(4):418. 38673045 10.3390/jpm14040418 PMC11051552 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Reference Source Precision health: Improving health for each of us and all of us [cited 2024 Mar 10]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;2019. Reference Source Naithani N Atal AT Tilak TVSVGK : Precision medicine: uses and challenges. Med. J. Armed Forces India. 2021 Jul;77(3):258–265. 34305277 10.1016/j.mjafi.2021.06.020 PMC8282516 Johnson KB Wei WQ Weeraratne D : Precision medicine, AI, and the future of personalized health care. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2021;14(1):86–93. 32961010 10.1111/cts.12884 PMC7877825 Bilani N Dagher M Zgheib NK : Precision genetic and genomic medicine in the Middle East and North Africa region: are we there yet? Public Health Genomics. 2017;20(3):149–157. 28478447 10.1159/000473890 Market Data Forecast: MEA Precision Medicine Market. Market Data Forecast. 2024 [cited 2024 Mar 12]. Reference Source Traffic Digital: News|Department of Health - Abu Dhabi. 2023 [cited 2024 Mar 12]. Reference Source Reference Source The Emirati Genome Programme: UAE [cited 2024 Mar 12]. Reference Source Jairoun AA Al-Hemyari SS Shahwan M : Empowering precision medicine: Insights from a national survey on pharmacogenomics knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions among community pharmacists in the UAE. Explor. Res. Clin. Soc. Pharm [Internet]. 2024;16(100508): 100508. 39376795 10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100508 PMC11456781 Rahma AT Elsheik M Elbarazi I : Knowledge and Attitudes of Medical and Health Science Students in the United Arab Emirates toward Genomic Medicine and Pharmacogenomics: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Pers. Med. 2020 Oct 24;10(4):191. Reference Source Rahma AT Elsheik M Ali BR : Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Barriers toward Genetic Testing and Pharmacogenomics among Healthcare Workers in the United Arab Emirates: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Pers. Med [Internet]. 2020 Nov 9;10(4). 10.3390/jpm10040216 PMC7711841 Li Y Zhang X Xiang Z : Public Attitudes About the Use of Gene Therapy in Mainland China. JAMA Netw. Open. 2023;6(8):e2328352. 37566417 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28352 PMC10422191 Edris A Callier E Lahousse L : Precision medicine from a citizen perspective: a survey of public attitudes towards pharmacogenomics in Flanders. BMC Med. Genet. 2022;15(Suppl 3):193. 36096833 10.1186/s12920-022-01308-7 PMC9466314 Bashir MM Alshamsi M Almahrooqi S : Prevalence of chronic diseases among United Arab Emirates University students: cross-sectional study. Eur. J. Pub. Health. 2022 Oct 25;32(Suppl 3):ckac131.142. 10.1093/eurpub/ckac131.142 PMC9594574 Delara M Murray L Jafari B : Prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:601. 35854209 10.1186/s12877-022-03279-7 PMC9297624 Global Media Insight: United Arab Emirates (UAE) population statistics 2024. Reference Source Weber AM Gupta R Abdalla S : Gender-related data missingness, imbalance and bias in global health surveys. BMJ Glob. Health. 2021;6(11):e007405. 34836912 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007405 PMC8628344 Smith WG : Does gender influence online survey participation? A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior. 2008 Jun [cited 2025 Apr 9];21p. Online Submission. Reference Source Almaazmi MA Samara KA Jarai M : The usage and trustworthiness of various health information sources in the United Arab Emirates: an online national cross-sectional survey. Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Feb 24;11(5):663. 36900668 10.3390/healthcare11050663 PMC10001002 Schroll MM Agarwal A Foroughi O : Stakeholders’ perceptions of barriers to precision medicine adoption in the United States. J. Pers. Med. 2022 Jun 22;12(7):1025. 35887521 10.3390/jpm12071025 PMC9316935 Lucca J : Public awareness on precision medicine. Harvard Dataverse. 2025;V2. 10.7910/DVN/MNLFUY 10.5256/f1000research.191800.r452917 Reviewer response for version 2 Alimohamed Mohamed Zahir 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1240-928X Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 24 2 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Alimohamed MZ 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve

Additional comments:

The limitations section is clearer now, but it would help to state more explicitly that the findings cannot be generalized to the entire UAE population, especially older adults and lower-education groups.

The scoring systems for knowledge, acceptance, and practice are now explained, but a brief reminder in the Results section (one sentence) on what higher scores mean would improve readability for non-technical readers.

In the Discussion, some comparisons with international studies are added. Consider briefly explaining why the UAE context may differ (health system structure, insurance model, population demographics) rather than only stating similarities or differences.

The Conclusion is more balanced than before. One suggestion is to slightly reduce policy-forward language and keep recommendations framed as future research and public engagement priorities, not implementation guidance.

Minor editorial point: ensure consistent tense and capitalization in table titles and figure captions. A final copy-edit will easily fix this.

 Overall assessment:

The revision addresses the core scientific and methodological issues. The manuscript now reads as a sound exploratory study, with appropriate caution in interpretation. Only minor refinements are needed at this stage.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Molecular Genetics, Genetic Counselling, Molecular diagnostics, Cardiomyopathies, SCD, NCDs, Precision Medicine.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

 10.5256/f1000research.191800.r452919 Reviewer response for version 2 Aldous Colleen 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7199-9160 University of Kwa-Zulu Natal, Durban, South Africa

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 4 2 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Aldous C 2026 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve

The article has been significantly improved and now it can be indexed.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

NA

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

 10.5256/f1000research.180079.r414422 Reviewer response for version 1 Aldous Colleen 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7199-9160 University of Kwa-Zulu Natal, Durban, South Africa

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 15 10 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Aldous C 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-with-reservations

1. Clarity of Presentation and Use of Current Literature —  Partly

The manuscript is clearly structured but requires significant improvement in linguistic precision, conceptual coherence, and literature contextualization. Numerous grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and inconsistent terminology (e.g., “precised medicine,” “pawing inroads”) reduce readability and professionalism. The introduction conflates  precision,  personalised, and  genomic medicine without defining them distinctly.

Recommendations:

The paper should undergo  comprehensive language and style editing by a professional editor fluent in academic English.

Expand the  literature review to include international studies on public awareness of precision medicine from Europe, North America, and East Asia to enable meaningful benchmarking.

Provide clearer definitions of key terms and maintain terminological consistency throughout the text.

Avoid promotional or uncritical language (e.g., “UAE, leading in adapting new technologies”), and instead adopt an evidence-based tone.

 Essential for scientific soundness: Clarity, precision in terminology, and a more balanced, globally contextualised literature review.

2. Study Design and Technical Soundness —  Partly

The cross-sectional, online, snowball-sampled design is acceptable for exploratory research but suffers from severe  sampling bias. The sample (94% under 50, 60% with bachelor’s degrees, nearly half students) is not representative of the UAE general population. The methodology lacks depth in survey validation and data analysis transparency.

Recommendations:

Explicitly acknowledge  selection bias and lack of representativeness in the discussion and conclusions.

Describe  survey recruitment channels and mechanisms to prevent duplicate responses.

Provide  validation metrics for the questionnaire (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, pilot testing results).

Justify the scoring systems for “knowledge,” “acceptance,” and “practice” or reference validated instruments used in prior research.

 Essential for scientific soundness: Clearer methodological transparency and acknowledgement of sampling limitations.

3. Replicability of Methods and Analysis —  No / Partly

The methods section lacks the detail necessary for replication. The full questionnaire, item wording, coding procedures, and scoring logic are not included. The statistical methods are outlined but not sufficiently justified or described.

Recommendations:

Include the  complete survey instrument as a supplementary appendix.

Provide a  data dictionary and scoring codebook explaining how raw responses were converted into numerical scores.

Specify  handling of missing data,  normality testing, and any data cleaning procedures.

Upload  SPSS syntax or analytical scripts to the data repository for transparency.

 Essential for scientific soundness: Full methodological documentation and explicit variable coding details.

4. Statistical Analysis and Interpretation —  Partly

The use of Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests is appropriate for ordinal data, but the analytical plan is limited to univariate tests without adjustment for confounders or multiple comparisons. The interpretation overstates weak or marginal associations.

Recommendations:

Include  multivariate regression models to control for key demographic confounders (age, gender, education, income).

Report  effect sizes and confidence intervals to contextualise significance levels.

Apply  correction for multiple comparisons to reduce false-positive results.

Refrain from labelling non-significant trends (e.g.,  p = 0.056) as meaningful.

Ensure interpretation distinguishes between  statistical and  clinical significance.

 Essential for scientific soundness: More robust inferential analysis and moderation of interpretive claims.

5. Data Availability and Reproducibility —  Partly

Although the dataset is deposited in Harvard Dataverse, its utility is limited by insufficient documentation. The repository lacks variable definitions, questionnaire content, and analytical code.

Recommendations:

Provide a  complete metadata package, including variable labels, coding scheme, and questionnaire text.

Include  derived variable computation formulas for transparency (e.g., how familiarity or practice scores were calculated).

Attach  SPSS syntax or scripts used for analysis.

Verify that all shared data are  fully anonymised and ethically compliant.

 Essential for scientific soundness: Complete, well-documented dataset and analytical transparency.

6. Conclusions and Interpretation —  Partly

The conclusions are  overstated relative to the data. The results indicate limited awareness and engagement, yet the discussion portrays a “moderately aware” and “positively inclined” population. This optimistic framing is not supported by the evidence.

Recommendations:

Temper conclusions to reflect  exploratory scope and  descriptive findings.

Explicitly acknowledge the  limitations of generalizability due to sampling bias and self-selection.

Avoid implying  causal relationships (e.g., chronic disease status causing acceptance).

Reframe recommendations as  hypothesis-generating rather than prescriptive policy guidance.

 Essential for scientific soundness: Conclusions must align proportionally with the strength of evidence.

Overall Summary

This paper addresses a relevant topic in precision medicine awareness, but is  methodologically weak, under-analysed, and over-interpreted. It would not meet the publication standards of a high-impact journal in its current form. To make it scientifically sound, the authors must:

Conduct professional language and structural editing.

Expand and deepen the literature review.

Fully document methods, questionnaire, and data processing.

Strengthen the statistical analysis with multivariate and effect-size reporting.

Revise the discussion and conclusions to accurately reflect descriptive findings.

Ensure full data reproducibility and transparency through detailed documentation.

 Only after these revisions can the manuscript be considered methodologically credible and analytically defensible.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

NA

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Myalil Lucca Jisha Pharmacy Practice, Gulf medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 19 11 2025

Response to Reviewer Comment:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback regarding the clarity, linguistic precision, and conceptual framing of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the paper to address these concerns in the following ways:

Language and Grammar:

All sections of the manuscript have been thoroughly edited to correct grammatical errors, remove awkward phrasing, and improve overall readability and flow. We have also ensured consistency in terminology throughout (e.g., replaced “precised medicine” with “precision medicine” and removed unclear phrases such as “pawing inroads”).

Conceptual Coherence:

 A definition of all this terminology is added in the manuscript   precision medicine, personalized medicine, and Pharmacogenomics

Literature Contextualization:

Additional and more recent references have been incorporated to better situate the study within current literature and to strengthen the rationale for exploring public awareness and acceptance of precision medicine in the UAE.

Essential for scientific soundness: Clarity, precision in terminology, and a more balanced, globally contextualised literature review.

We fully acknowledge the reviewer’s emphasis on enhancing the scientific soundness of the manuscript. Accordingly, we have implemented the following revisions:

Clarity and Precision in Terminology:

Key terms such as precision medicine, personalized medicine, and genomic medicine have been clearly defined and consistently used throughout the manuscript to ensure conceptual precision and avoid ambiguity.

Study Design and Technical Soundness —  Partly

The cross-sectional, online, snowball-sampled design is acceptable for exploratory research but suffers from severe sampling bias. The sample (94% under 50, 60% with bachelor’s degrees, nearly half students) is not representative of the UAE general population. The methodology lacks depth in survey validation and data analysis transparency.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for these insightful comments regarding the study design, sampling method, and data validation. We have carefully addressed each concern as outlined below:

Acknowledgment of Sampling Bias and Representativeness:

We agree that the snowball-sampled, online survey may not fully represent the UAE’s general population  we have added a new session limitation of study and  acknowledged this limitation

Survey Recruitment and Duplicate Response Control:

We have now provided a clearer description of the recruitment process in the Methods section, specifying the online platforms  and methods specifically used to minimize duplicate entries, the Google Forms “one response per device” restriction was enabled, and responses with identical IP addresses or missing consent were excluded during data cleaning.

Validation Metrics and Instrument Reliability:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In the revised manuscript, we have now provided the full questionnaire as supplementary material. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed to ensure reliability of the data collected. The section on participants’ knowledge of precision medicine demonstrated excellent reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.852. Similarly, the section evaluating utilization patterns of precision medicine services showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.855, indicating high internal consistency. These values suggest that the questionnaire items were well-correlated and consistently measured the intended constructs, supporting the reliability of the study findings.   A similar statements is added in the methodology session Finally, we have expanded the discussion to acknowledge the potential sampling bias associated with the snowball sampling approach.

Justification of Scoring Systems:

Scoring methods for knowledge, acceptance, and practice were developed in alignment with approaches used in prior research assessing awareness and perceptions of precision medicine (e.g., Edris et al., 2023; Almaazmi et al., 2022). We have added citations and a short explanatory paragraph in the Methods section clarifying how Likert-scale items were aggregated and interpreted to create composite scores.

Replicability of Methods and Analysis —  No / Partly

The methods section lacks the detail necessary for replication. The full questionnaire, item wording, coding procedures, and scoring logic are not included. The statistical methods are outlined but not sufficiently justified or described.

Recommendations:

Include the  complete survey instrument as a supplementary appendix.

Provide a  data dictionary and scoring codebook explaining how raw responses were converted into numerical scores.

Specify  handling of missing data,  normality testing, and any data cleaning procedures.

Upload  SPSS syntax or analytical scripts to the data repository for transparency.

Essential for scientific soundness: Full methodological documentation and explicit variable coding details.

The complete questionnaire, including all item wordings and response options, has been provided as a supplementary appendix to facilitate replication. A statement of scoring codebook and data cleaning is added in the methods The rationale for each statistical test has been clarified in the Methods section.

 Data Availability and Reproducibility —  Partly

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to include multivariate regression analyses and adjustments for multiple comparisons. While we acknowledge that such analyses could provide more robust inferential insights, the current study is an undergraduate-level exploratory project, and the available sample size and scope limit our ability to perform these analyses comprehensively.

We have, however, strengthened the rigor of our analysis by:

Using appropriate non-parametric tests (Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis) for ordinal and non-normally distributed data.

Reporting effect sizes where feasible and clearly distinguishing between statistical significance and non-significant trends.

Providing detailed descriptions of scoring procedures, variable coding, and data cleaning in the Methods section.

Conclusions and Interpretation —  Partly

Response: We have revised the conclusions to reflect the exploratory and descriptive nature of the study by tempering language to “limited to modest awareness,” acknowledging the non-representative sample, reframing recommendations as areas for future research, and avoiding causal claims, thereby ensuring alignment with the strength of evidence.

 10.5256/f1000research.180079.r414418 Reviewer response for version 1 Ogamba Chibuzor F. 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3778-311X University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 29 9 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Ogamba CF 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

The manuscript would benefit from substantial methodological clarification and tighter statistical reporting to be suitable for indexing.

The authors report on public awareness, acceptance and accessibility of precision medicine in the UAE using a cross-sectional study design. About half of the sample reported at least some familiarity with precision medicine terminology. Group differences were tested using non-parametric methods.

Strengths: Focused, policy-relevant question

Methods reporting is incomplete and hampers replicability: 

- Define all constructs (e.g., familiarity, knowledge, acceptance, perceived benefits, preferences for pharmacogenetic testing) and how each score is computed.

- Move any construct definitions currently in Results into Methods.

- Clarify whether the sample is intended to be population-representative; if not, temper generalizations.

- The statement “Gender differences approached statistical significance (p = 0.056) … suggesting a potential trend” overstates evidence and is misleading at α=0.05. Moreover, the reported medians are identical (female 8; male 8), contradicting “slightly higher median.”

- ‘familiarity’ vs ‘knowledge’ appear to be used interchangeably. Please state whether they are distinct constructs (different items/scales) or synonyms. If distinct, report separate definitions, scoring, and reliability.

- Phrases such as “median around 5” are not informative without the scale range and anchors. Always report the possible range so readers can interpret the neutrality or magnitude accurately.

- If baseline awareness/engagement with precision medicine is limited, respondents may not fully understand insurance-coverage items. Discuss construct validity and potential measurement error in the Limitations.

- Regarding the questionnaire, the authors do not cite what sources the existing questionnaire was adapted from. 

-“Panel of five experts” includes two pharmacy students; that’s not an expert panel.

- “Given for a common man” is informal, non-inclusive wording, and describes neither the methods nor the sample  nor what feedback was gathered

- Limitations section is currently missing.

- In Figure 3, clarify in the Methods and the figure caption whether multiple selections were allowed. If yes, state “multiple responses permitted; percentages may sum to >100%,” and avoid phrasing like “For 18% of respondents, the key purpose was cheaper treatment” which implies mutual exclusivity.

- Consider aligning reporting with STROBE (checklist for cross-sectional studies):

- Report exact p values to three decimals where possible (e.g., p = 0.056); use “p < 0.001” for very small values. Replace any “p < 0.5” with the exact value.

- The Methods say “means ± SD for continuous variables,” but no means are presented. Either (a) present means ± SD (with normality justification), or (b) revise Methods to reflect medians (IQR) for skewed/ordinal data.

- State the distribution of the outcomes eg outcomes are ordinal or non-normal that justifies choice of non-parametric tests.

- Ensure percentages and frequencies follow a single style (e.g., “n (%)”) throughout.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

Epidemiology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Myalil Lucca Jisha Pharmacy Practice, Gulf medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 19 11 2025

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback

Methods reporting is incomplete and hampers replicability: - Define all constructs (e.g., familiarity, knowledge, acceptance, perceived benefits, preferences for pharmacogenetic testing) and how each score is computed. 

Response: We have now clearly defined all key constructs in the Methods section.

Move any construct definitions currently in Results into Methods.

Response:  Done

The statement “Gender differences approached statistical significance (p = 0.056) … suggesting a potential trend” overstates evidence and is misleading at α=0.05. Moreover, the reported medians are identical (female 8; male 8), contradicting “slightly higher median.”

Response: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

‘familiarity’ vs ‘knowledge’ appear to be used interchangeably. Please state whether they are distinct constructs (different items/scales) or synonyms. If distinct, report separate definitions, scoring, and reliability.

Response: In our study, “familiarity” and “knowledge” are used as synonyms

Phrases such as “median around 5” are not informative without the scale range and anchors. Always report the possible range so readers can interpret the neutrality or magnitude accurately.

Response: The single instance in which the median was previously described as “around 5” has now been revised to include the full scale range and context. All other medians in the manuscript are already reported with interquartile ranges, ensuring clarity and interpretability, and therefore no additional modifications are required.

- If baseline awareness/engagement with precision medicine is limited, respondents may not fully understand insurance-coverage items. Discuss construct validity and potential measurement error in the Limitations. 

Response: Updated the limitation 

Regarding the questionnaire, the authors do not cite what sources the existing questionnaire was adapted from. 

Response: The questionnaire was adapted from previously published studies on public awareness and perceptions of precision medicine which has now been explicitly cited in the Methods section.

-“Panel of five experts” includes two pharmacy students; that’s not an expert panel.

Response: Regarding the expert panel, we acknowledge that including pharmacy students does not fully meet the traditional definition of “experts”; however, as they are master’s-level students, they were considered semi-experts, and this clarification has been updated in the Methods section.

- “Given for a common man” is informal, non-inclusive wording, and describes neither the methods nor the sample  nor what feedback was gathered

Response: The questionnaire was tested with individuals from the general public, specifically one investigator family member  to assess clarity, comprehensibility, and ease of completion. Participants were asked whether any items were difficult to understand or ambiguous.

Limitations section is currently missing:

Response: Added

 In Figure 3, clarify in the Methods and the figure caption whether multiple selections were allowed. If yes, state “multiple responses permitted; percentages may sum to >100%,” and avoid phrasing like “For 18% of respondents, the key purpose was cheaper treatment” which implies mutual exclusivity.

Response: Figure 3 caption have been updated to clarify that multiple responses were permitted, and percentages may sum to more than 100%.

Consider aligning reporting with STROBE (checklist for cross-sectional studies):

The manuscript has been reviewed and revised to align with the STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies.

Response: Relevant sections, including study design, participant recruitment, variables, data sources, statistical methods, and limitations, have been updated to improve clarity, transparency, and completeness of reporting.

Report exact p values to three decimals where possible (e.g., p = 0.056); use “p < 0.001” for very small values. Replace any “p < 0.5” with the exact value. Done

The Methods say “means ± SD for continuous variables,” but no means are presented. Either (a) present means ± SD (with normality justification), or (b) revise Methods to reflect medians (IQR) for skewed/ordinal data.

Response: Modification made in methodology

Ensure percentages and frequencies follow a single style (e.g., “n (%)”) throughout.

Response: Modification done in results

10.5256/f1000research.180079.r397406 Reviewer response for version 1 Alimohamed Mohamed Zahir 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1240-928X Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 27 8 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Alimohamed MZ 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation approve-with-reservations

This cross-sectional study evaluates awareness, acceptance, and utilization of precision medicine among the general population in the UAE using an online questionnaire. The authors present descriptive and inferential statistics to examine associations between sociodemographic variables and awareness or practice of precision medicine. The article highlights low engagement with genetic testing, limited awareness of insurance coverage, and moderate familiarity with precision medicine terms. The study concludes with recommendations for improving public engagement.

Areas for Improvement

Clarity and Writing Quality (Partly): The manuscript suffers from language and grammar issues, especially in the introduction and methods sections. Recommendation: A thorough language edit by a native English speaker or professional editor is required.

Incomplete Literature Context (Partly): While the study cites relevant and recent literature, it lacks a deeper discussion of similar public awareness studies from other regions or global comparisons. Recommendation: Strengthen the introduction and discussion by incorporating more international studies on public awareness of precision medicine for better benchmarking.

Methodological Transparency (Partly): The sampling approach (snowball sampling) is appropriate for exploratory work but introduces bias. This limitation is not discussed sufficiently. The survey’s validation process is briefly mentioned, but the full questionnaire is not provided in the supplementary data. It is unclear how the knowledge, acceptance, and practice scores were calculated and whether internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) was assessed. Recommendation: Clearly outline the scoring methodology, include the full questionnaire as supplementary material, and address sampling limitations in the discussion.

Conclusions Not Fully Supported (Partly): While the data support the claim of limited awareness and utilization, the conclusion suggests "generally positive perception" which is not robustly demonstrated in the results. Recommendation: Temper conclusions to align with the modest awareness and engagement levels shown by the data.

 Final Recommendation

The study addresses a meaningful topic and presents original data from a region underrepresented in public genomics research. However, substantial revisions are necessary, primarily in clarity, methodology transparency, and conclusion framing before it is suitable for indexing.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Molecular Genetics, Genetic Counselling, Molecular diagnostics, Cardiomyopathies, SCD, NCDs, Precision Medicine.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Myalil Lucca Jisha Pharmacy Practice, Gulf medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 19 11 2025

Thank you for your valuable review and constructive feedback, which will help us strengthen our study and its recommendations.

Areas for Improvements

Clarity and Writing Quality (Partly): The manuscript suffers from language and grammar issues, especially in the introduction and methods sections. Recommendation: A thorough language edit by a native English speaker or professional editor is required.

Response: We  appreciate your feedback, and the manuscript has been thoroughly revised for language and grammar using various online editing tools to improve clarity and quality.

Incomplete Literature Context (Partly): While the study cites relevant and recent literature, it lacks a deeper discussion of similar public awareness studies from other regions or global comparisons. Recommendation: Strengthen the introduction and discussion by incorporating more international studies on public awareness of precision medicine for better benchmarking.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion; we have strengthened the introduction and discussion by incorporating additional international studies on public awareness of precision medicine to provide better global context and benchmarking.

Methodological Transparency (Partly): The sampling approach (snowball sampling) is appropriate for exploratory work but introduces bias. This limitation is not discussed sufficiently. The survey’s validation process is briefly mentioned, but the full questionnaire is not provided in the supplementary data. It is unclear how the knowledge, acceptance, and practice scores were calculated and whether internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) was assessed. Recommendation: Clearly outline the scoring methodology, include the full questionnaire as supplementary material, and address sampling limitations in the discussion.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In the revised manuscript, we have now provided the full questionnaire as supplementary material. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed to ensure reliability of the data collected. The section on participants’ knowledge of precision medicine demonstrated excellent reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.852. Similarly, the section evaluating utilization patterns of precision medicine services showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.855, indicating high internal consistency. These values suggest that the questionnaire items were well-correlated and consistently measured the intended constructs, supporting the reliability of the study findings.   A similar statement is added in the methodology session Finally, we have expanded the discussion to acknowledge the potential sampling bias associated with the snowball sampling approach.

Conclusions Not Fully Supported (Partly): While the data support the claim of limited awareness and utilization, the conclusion suggests "generally positive perception" which is not robustly demonstrated in the results. Recommendation: Temper conclusions to align with the modest awareness and engagement levels shown by the data.

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that the conclusion required refinement to more accurately reflect the study findings. Accordingly, we have revised the conclusion