Literature DB >> 19478683

Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information.

Morris W Foster1, John J Mulvihill, Richard R Sharp.   

Abstract

In evaluating the utility of human genome-wide assays, the answer will differ depending on why the question is asked. For purposes of regulating medical tests, a restrictive sense of clinical utility is used, although it may be possible to have clinical utility without changing patient's outcomes and clinical utility may vary between patients. For purposes of using limited third party or public health resources, cost effectiveness should be evaluated in a societal rather than individual context. However, for other health uses of genomic information a broader sense of overall utility should be used. Behavioral changes and increased individual awareness of health-related choices are relevant metrics for evaluating the personal utility of genomic information, even when traditional clinical benefits are not manifested. In taking account of personal utility, cost effectiveness may be calculated on an individual and societal basis. Overall measures of utility (including both restrictive clinical measures and measures of personal utility) may vary significantly between individuals depending on potential changes in lifestyle, health awareness and behaviors, family dynamics, and personal choice and interest as well as the psychological effects of disease risk perception. That interindividual variation suggests that a more expansive overall measure of utility could be used to identify individuals who are more likely to benefit from personal genomic information as well as those for whom the risks of personal information may be greater than any benefits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19478683     DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181a2743e

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


  77 in total

1.  Users' motivations to purchase direct-to-consumer genome-wide testing: an exploratory study of personal stories.

Authors:  Yeyang Su; Heidi C Howard; Pascal Borry
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-05-28

2.  Is there a doctor in the house? : The presence of physicians in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing context.

Authors:  Heidi Carmen Howard; Pascal Borry
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-09-06

3.  Legislation on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in seven European countries.

Authors:  Pascal Borry; Rachel E van Hellemondt; Dominique Sprumont; Camilla Fittipaldi Duarte Jales; Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag; Tade Matthias Spranger; Liam Curren; Jane Kaye; Herman Nys; Heidi Howard
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 4.  Personal genetics: regulatory framework in Europe from a service provider's perspective.

Authors:  Keith A Grimaldi; Markus P Look; G Antonio Scioli; Juan Coll Clavero; Stathis Marinos; Tassos Tagaris
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: a case study and practical recommendations for “genomic counseling”.

Authors:  Amy C Sturm; Kandamurugu Manickam
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Genetic counseling as a tool for type 2 diabetes prevention: a genetic counseling framework for common polygenetic disorders.

Authors:  Jessica L Waxler; Kelsey E O'Brien; Linda M Delahanty; James B Meigs; Jose C Florez; Elyse R Park; Barbara R Pober; Richard W Grant
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 7.  Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review.

Authors:  Z Lohn; S Adam; P H Birch; J M Friedman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-26       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Evaluation of genetic tests for susceptibility to common complex diseases: why, when and how?

Authors:  Caroline Fiona Wright; Mark Kroese
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 4.132

9.  Perceived ambiguity as a barrier to intentions to learn genome sequencing results.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein; Rebecca A Ferrer; Paul K J Han; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-05-24

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.