Literature DB >> 18978674

Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis.

Scott D Grosse1, Sarah Wordsworth, Katherine Payne.   

Abstract

Genetic testing in health care can provide information to help with disease prediction, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Assessing the clinical utility of genetic testing requires a process to value and weight different outcomes. This article discusses the relative merits of different economic measures and methods to inform recommendations relative to genetic testing for risk of disease, including cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis. Cost-effectiveness analyses refer to analyses that calculate the incremental cost per unit of health outcomes, such as deaths prevented or life-years saved because of some intervention. Cost-effectiveness analyses that use preference-based measures of health state utility such as quality-adjusted life-years to define outcomes are referred to as cost-utility analyses. Cost-effectiveness analyses presume that health policy decision makers seek to maximize health subject to resource constraints. Cost-benefit analyses can incorporate monetary estimates of willingness-to-pay for genetic testing, including the perceived value of information independent of health outcomes. These estimates can be derived from contingent valuation or discrete choice experiments. Because important outcomes of genetic testing do not fit easily within traditional measures of health, cost-effectiveness analyses do not necessarily capture the full range of outcomes of genetic testing that are important to decision makers and consumers. We recommend that health policy decision makers consider the value to consumers of information and other nonhealth attributes of genetic testing strategies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18978674     DOI: 10.1097/gim.0b013e3181837217

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  44 in total

1.  Health utility elicitation: is there still a role for direct methods?

Authors:  Lisa A Prosser; Scott D Grosse; Eve Wittenberg
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Points to consider in assessing and appraising predictive genetic tests.

Authors:  Wolf H Rogowski; Scott D Grosse; Jürgen John; Helena Kääriäinen; Alastair Kent; Ulf Kristofferson; Jörg Schmidtke
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2010-10-16

Review 3.  Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice.

Authors:  Wolf H Rogowski; Scott D Grosse; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Criteria for fairly allocating scarce health-care resources to genetic tests: which matter most?

Authors:  Wolf H Rogowski; Scott D Grosse; Jörg Schmidtke; Georg Marckmann
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  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

Review 6.  Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities. Background Document to the ESHG recommendations on genetic testing and common disorders.

Authors:  Frauke Becker; Carla G van El; Dolores Ibarreta; Eleni Zika; Stuart Hogarth; Pascal Borry; Anne Cambon-Thomsen; Jean Jacques Cassiman; Gerry Evers-Kiebooms; Shirley Hodgson; A Cécile J W Janssens; Helena Kaariainen; Michael Krawczak; Ulf Kristoffersson; Jan Lubinski; Christine Patch; Victor B Penchaszadeh; Andrew Read; Wolf Rogowski; Jorge Sequeiros; Lisbeth Tranebjaerg; Irene M van Langen; Helen Wallace; Ron Zimmern; Jörg Schmidtke; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Statistical Optimization of Pharmacogenomics Association Studies: Key Considerations from Study Design to Analysis.

Authors:  Benjamin J Grady; Marylyn D Ritchie
Journal:  Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med       Date:  2011-03-01

8.  Valuations of genetic test information for treatable conditions: the case of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Vikram Kilambi; F Reed Johnson; Juan Marcos González; Ateesha F Mohamed
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 9.  Decision making about cancer screening: an assessment of the state of the science and a suggested research agenda from the ASPO Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Communication Special Interest Group.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Aimee S James; Isaac M Lipkus; Helen I Meissner; Michael Stefanek; Jamie L Studts; John F P Bridges; David R Close; Deborah O Erwin; Resa M Jones; Karen Kaiser; Kathryn M Kash; Kimberly M Kelly; Simon J Craddock Lee; Jason Q Purnell; Laura A Siminoff; Susan T Vadaparampil; Catharine Wang
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Personalized medicine and genomics: challenges and opportunities in assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and future research priorities.

Authors:  Rena Conti; David L Veenstra; Katrina Armstrong; Lawrence J Lesko; Scott D Grosse
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.