PURPOSE: Little is known about the factors that influence patients' preferences for the return of incidental findings from genome sequencing. This study identified attributes of incidental findings that were important to patients and developed a discrete-choice experiment instrument to quantify patient preferences. METHODS: An initial set of key attributes and attribute levels was developed from a literature review and in consultation with experts. The attributes' salience and communication were refined using focus group methodology (n = 12) and cognitive interviews (n = 6) with patients who had received conventional genetic testing for familial colorectal cancer or polyposis syndromes. The attributes and levels used in the hypothetical choices presented to participants were identified using validated experimental design techniques. RESULTS: The final discrete-choice experiment instrument incorporates the following attributes and levels: lifetime risk of disease (5, 40, 70%); disease treatability (medical, lifestyle, none); disease severity (mild, moderate, severe); carrier status (yes, no); drug response likelihood (high, moderate, none); and test cost ($250, $425, $1,000, $1,900). CONCLUSION: Patient preferences for incidental genomic findings are likely influenced by a complex set of diverse attributes. Quantification of patient preferences can inform patient-provider communication by highlighting the attributes of incidental findings that matter most to patients and warrant further discussion.
PURPOSE: Little is known about the factors that influence patients' preferences for the return of incidental findings from genome sequencing. This study identified attributes of incidental findings that were important to patients and developed a discrete-choice experiment instrument to quantify patient preferences. METHODS: An initial set of key attributes and attribute levels was developed from a literature review and in consultation with experts. The attributes' salience and communication were refined using focus group methodology (n = 12) and cognitive interviews (n = 6) with patients who had received conventional genetic testing for familial colorectal cancer or polyposis syndromes. The attributes and levels used in the hypothetical choices presented to participants were identified using validated experimental design techniques. RESULTS: The final discrete-choice experiment instrument incorporates the following attributes and levels: lifetime risk of disease (5, 40, 70%); disease treatability (medical, lifestyle, none); disease severity (mild, moderate, severe); carrier status (yes, no); drug response likelihood (high, moderate, none); and test cost ($250, $425, $1,000, $1,900). CONCLUSION: Patient preferences for incidental genomic findings are likely influenced by a complex set of diverse attributes. Quantification of patient preferences can inform patient-provider communication by highlighting the attributes of incidental findings that matter most to patients and warrant further discussion.
Authors: John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Leslie G Biesecker; James C Mullikin; Flavia M Facio; Clesson Turner; Praveen F Cherukuri; Robert W Blakesley; Gerard G Bouffard; Peter S Chines; Pedro Cruz; Nancy F Hansen; Jamie K Teer; Baishali Maskeri; Alice C Young; Teri A Manolio; Alexander F Wilson; Toren Finkel; Paul Hwang; Andrew Arai; Alan T Remaley; Vandana Sachdev; Robert Shamburek; Richard O Cannon; Eric D Green Journal: Genome Res Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Amanda J Bishop; Theresa M Marteau; David Armstrong; Lyn S Chitty; Louise Longworth; Martin J Buxton; Cheryl Berlin Journal: BJOG Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Lynn G Dressler; Sondra Smolek; Roselle Ponsaran; Janell M Markey; Helene Starks; Nancy Gerson; Susan Lewis; Nancy Press; Eric Juengst; Georgia L Wiesner Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Susan M Wolf; Rebecca Branum; Barbara A Koenig; Gloria M Petersen; Susan A Berry; Laura M Beskow; Mary B Daly; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green; Bonnie S LeRoy; Noralane M Lindor; P Pearl O'Rourke; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Mark A Rothstein; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2015 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Carol R Horowitz; Frank Angelo; Jeannette T Bensen; Barbara B Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; Kelly Filipski; Stephanie M Fullerton; Bruce D Gelb; Katrina A B Goddard; Benyam Hailu; Ragan Hart; Kristen Hassmiller-Lich; Galen Joseph; Eimear E Kenny; Barbara A Koenig; Sara Knight; Pui-Yan Kwok; Katie L Lewis; Amy L McGuire; Mary E Norton; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Bradford C Powell; Neil Risch; Mimsie Robinson; Christine Rini; Sarah Scollon; Anne M Slavotinek; David L Veenstra; Melissa P Wasserstein; Benjamin S Wilfond; Lucia A Hindorff; Sharon E Plon; Gail P Jarvik Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Erin Turbitt; Michelle M Wiest; Jane L Halliday; David J Amor; Sylvia A Metcalfe Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Carlos J Gallego; Caroline S Bennette; Patrick Heagerty; Bryan Comstock; Martha Horike-Pyne; Fuki Hisama; Laura M Amendola; Robin L Bennett; Michael O Dorschner; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; William M Grady; S Malia Fullerton; Susan B Trinidad; Dean A Regier; Deborah A Nickerson; Wylie Burke; Donald L Patrick; Gail P Jarvik; David L Veenstra Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Dean A Regier; Stuart J Peacock; Reka Pataky; Kimberly van der Hoek; Gail P Jarvik; Jeffrey Hoch; David Veenstra Journal: CMAJ Date: 2015-03-09 Impact factor: 8.262