Literature DB >> 22595941

Association between health-service use and multiplex genetic testing.

Robert J Reid1, Colleen M McBride, Sharon Hensley Alford, Cristofer Price, Andreas D Baxevanis, Lawrence C Brody, Eric B Larson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The objective of this work was to examine whether offers of multiplex genetic testing increase health-care utilization among healthy patients aged 25-40 years. The identification of genetic variants associated with common disease is accelerating rapidly. "Multiplex tests" that give individuals feedback on large panels of genetic variants have proliferated. Availability of these test results may prompt consumers to use more health-care services.
METHODS: A total of 1,599 continuously insured adults aged 25-40 years were surveyed and offered a multiplex genetic susceptibility test for eight common health conditions. Health-care utilization from automated records was compared in 12-month pre- and posttest periods among persons who completed a baseline survey only (68.7%), those who visited a study website but opted not to test (17.8%), and those who chose the multiplex genetic susceptibility test (13.6%).
RESULTS: In the pretest period, persons choosing genetic testing used an average of 1.02 physician visits per quarter as compared with 0.93 and 0.82 for the baseline-only and Web-only groups, respectively (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences by group in the pretest use of any common medical tests or procedures associated with four common health conditions. When changes in physician and medical test/procedure use in the posttest period were compared among the groups, no statistically significant differences were observed for any utilization category.
CONCLUSIONS: Persons offered and completing multiplex genetic susceptibility testing used more physician visits before testing, but testing was not associated with subsequent changes in use. This study supports the supposition that multiplex genetic testing offers can be provided directly to the patients in such a way that use of health services is not inappropriately increased.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22595941      PMCID: PMC3424345          DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.52

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


  36 in total

1.  The ethics of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  Laurie Udesky
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-10-23       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Association of polymorphisms of the estrogen receptor alpha gene with bone mineral density and fracture risk in women: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Ioanna Stavrou; Thomas A Trikalinos; Christos Zois; Maria Luisa Brandi; Luigi Gennari; Omar Albagha; Stuart H Ralston; Agathocles Tsatsoulis
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 6.741

3.  Cholesteryl ester transfer protein TaqIB variant, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, cardiovascular risk, and efficacy of pravastatin treatment: individual patient meta-analysis of 13,677 subjects.

Authors:  S M Boekholdt; F M Sacks; J W Jukema; J Shepherd; D J Freeman; A D McMahon; F Cambien; V Nicaud; G J de Grooth; P J Talmud; S E Humphries; G J Miller; G Eiriksdottir; V Gudnason; H Kauma; S Kakko; M J Savolainen; M Arca; A Montali; S Liu; H J Lanz; A H Zwinderman; J A Kuivenhoven; J J P Kastelein
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2005-01-17       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies.

Authors:  G Maldonado; S Greenland
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1993-12-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphism, alcohol intake, and risks of colon and rectal cancers in Korea.

Authors:  Dong-Hyun Kim; Yoon-Ok Ahn; Bong-Hwa Lee; Emiko Tsuji; Chikako Kiyohara; Suminori Kono
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  2004-12-28       Impact factor: 8.679

6.  Putting science over supposition in the arena of personalized genomics.

Authors:  Colleen M McBride; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 38.330

Review 7.  Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review.

Authors:  Maren T Scheuner; Pauline Sieverding; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-03-19       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Interleukin-6 promoter polymorphism is associated with bone quality assessed by calcaneus ultrasound and previous fractures in a cohort of 75-year-old women.

Authors:  Anna Nordström; Paul Gerdhem; Helena Brändström; Fredrik Stiger; Ulf H Lerner; Mattias Lorentzon; Karl Obrant; Peter Nordström; Kristina Akesson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-03-02       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Wylie Burke
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician-patient interactions.

Authors:  Colleen M McBride; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  23 in total

1.  Predictive genetic testing, risk communication, and risk perception: an international expert meeting in Berlin, Germany.

Authors:  Eva Fisher; Steffi Achilles; Holger Tönnies
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-12-10

2.  Does personal genome testing drive service utilization in an adult preventive medicine clinic?

Authors:  Ny Hoang; Robin Hayeems; Jill Davies; Shuye Pu; Syed Wasim; Lea Velsher; James Aw; Sébastien Chénier; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; Riyana Babul-Hirji; Rosanna Weksberg; Cheryl Shuman
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-04-03

3.  Direct-to-consumer genomic testing from the perspective of the health professional: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Lesley Goldsmith; Leigh Jackson; Anita O'Connor; Heather Skirton
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-01-16

4.  Exploring barriers to payer utilization of genetic counselors.

Authors:  Nan Doyle; Allison Cirino; Amber Trivedi; Maureen Flynn
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Personal Genomics Services: A Review of Recent Empirical Studies.

Authors:  J Scott Roberts; Jenny Ostergren
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2013-09

6.  Discussing race-related limitations of genomic testing for colon cancer risk: implications for education and counseling.

Authors:  Morgan N Butrick; Lauren Vanhusen; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Gillian W Hooker; Rachel Nusbaum; Beth N Peshkin; Yasmin Salehizadeh; Jessica Pavlick; Marc D Schwartz; Kristi D Graves
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Harm, hype and evidence: ELSI research and policy guidance.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Subhashini Chandrasekharan; Yann Joly; Robert Cook-Deegan
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 11.117

8.  Social determinants of family health history collection.

Authors:  Chanita Hughes Halbert; Brandon Welch; Cheryl Lynch; Gayenell Magwood; LaShanta Rice; Melanie Jefferson; Jodie Riley
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2015-08-18

Review 9.  Molecular genetic testing and the future of clinical genomics.

Authors:  Sara Huston Katsanis; Nicholas Katsanis
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 10.  Growing up in the genomic era: implications of whole-genome sequencing for children, families, and pediatric practice.

Authors:  Christopher H Wade; Beth A Tarini; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 8.929

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.