Literature DB >> 16243406

What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment.

Jane Hall1, Denzil G Fiebig, Madeleine T King, Ishrat Hossain, Jordan J Louviere.   

Abstract

This study explores factors that influence participation in genetic testing programs and the acceptance of multiple tests. Tay Sachs and cystic fibrosis are both genetically determined recessive disorders with differing severity, treatment availability, and prevalence in different population groups. We used a discrete choice experiment with a general community and an Ashkenazi Jewish sample; data were analysed using multinomial logit with random coefficients. Although Jewish respondents were more likely to be tested, both groups seem to be making very similar tradeoffs across attributes when they make genetic testing choices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16243406     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.09.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Econ        ISSN: 0167-6296            Impact factor:   3.883


  35 in total

1.  Patient preferences for first-line oral treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Paul Hodgkins; Paul Swinburn; Dory Solomon; Linnette Yen; Sarah Dewilde; Andrew Lloyd
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: the role of coherence.

Authors:  Linda D Cameron; Theresa M Marteau; Paul M Brown; William M P Klein; Kerry A Sherman
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2011-06-23

3.  "Suddenly Having two Positive People who are Carriers is a Whole New Thing" - Experiences of Couples Both Identified as Carriers of Cystic Fibrosis Through a Population-Based Carrier Screening Program in Australia.

Authors:  Liane Ioannou; Martin B Delatycki; John Massie; Jan Hodgson; Sharon Lewis
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Denzil G Fiebig; Arne Risa Hole
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Preferences for genetic testing for colorectal cancer within a population-based screening program: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Jorien Veldwijk; Mattijs S Lambooij; Frank G J Kallenberg; Henk J van Kranen; Annelien L Bredenoord; Evelien Dekker; Henriëtte A Smit; G Ardine de Wit
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Eliciting preferences to inform patient-centred policies: the case of psoriasis.

Authors:  Aleksandra Torbica; Giovanni Fattore; Fabio Ayala
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Patient preferences for treatment of achilles tendon pain: results from a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Kent R Sweeting; Jennifer A Whitty; Paul A Scuffham; Michael J Yelland
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  What's good and bad about contraceptive products?: a best-worst attribute experiment comparing the values of women consumers and GPs.

Authors:  Stephanie A Knox; Rosalie C Viney; Deborah J Street; Marion R Haas; Denzil G Fiebig; Edith Weisberg; Deborah Bateson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Eliciting individual preferences for health care: a case study of perinatal care.

Authors:  Marjon van der Pol; Alan Shiell; Flora Au; David Jonhston; Suzanne Tough
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.