Literature DB >> 24794065

Cost sharing and hereditary cancer risk: predictors of willingness-to-pay for genetic testing.

Jennifer M Matro1, Karen J Ruth, Yu-Ning Wong, Katen C McCully, Christina M Rybak, Neal J Meropol, Michael J Hall.   

Abstract

Increasing use of predictive genetic testing to gauge hereditary cancer risk has been paralleled by rising cost-sharing practices. Little is known about how demographic and psychosocial factors may influence individuals' willingness-to-pay for genetic testing. The Gastrointestinal Tumor Risk Assessment Program Registry includes individuals presenting for genetic risk assessment based on personal/family cancer history. Participants complete a baseline survey assessing cancer history and psychosocial items. Willingness-to-pay items include intention for: genetic testing only if paid by insurance; testing with self-pay; and amount willing-to-pay ($25-$2,000). Multivariable models examined predictors of willingness-to-pay out-of-pocket (versus only if paid by insurance) and willingness-to-pay a smaller versus larger sum (≤$200 vs. ≥$500). All statistical tests are two-sided (α = 0.05). Of 385 evaluable participants, a minority (42%) had a personal cancer history, while 56% had ≥1 first-degree relative with colorectal cancer. Overall, 21.3% were willing to have testing only if paid by insurance, and 78.7% were willing-to-pay. Predictors of willingness-to-pay were: 1) concern for positive result; 2) confidence to control cancer risk; 3) fewer perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening; 4) benefit of testing to guide screening (all p < 0.05). Subjects willing-to-pay a higher amount were male, more educated, had greater cancer worry, fewer relatives with colorectal cancer, and more positive attitudes toward genetic testing (all p < 0.05). Individuals seeking risk assessment are willing-to-pay out-of-pocket for genetic testing, and anticipate benefits to reducing cancer risk. Identifying factors associated with willingness-to-pay for genetic services is increasingly important as testing is integrated into routine cancer care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24794065      PMCID: PMC4420173          DOI: 10.1007/s10897-014-9724-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  36 in total

Review 1.  Communicating genetic risk information within families: a review.

Authors:  Mel Wiseman; Caroline Dancyger; Susan Michie
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  Women's interest in genetic testing for breast cancer risk: the influence of sociodemographics and knowledge.

Authors:  Joan L Bottorff; Pamela A Ratner; Lynda G Balneaves; Chris G Richardson; Mary McCullum; Tom Hack; Karen Chalmers; Jane Buxton
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 3.  Cost-minimization analysis of genetic testing versus clinical screening of at-risk relatives for familial adenomatous polyposis.

Authors:  Yamina Chikhaoui; Huguette Gélinas; Lawrence Joseph; Jean-Marie Lance
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.188

4.  Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE.

Authors:  Nasim Mavaddat; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; Steve Ellis; Radka Platte; Elena Fineberg; D Gareth Evans; Louise Izatt; Rosalind A Eeles; Julian Adlard; Rosemarie Davidson; Diana Eccles; Trevor Cole; Jackie Cook; Carole Brewer; Marc Tischkowitz; Fiona Douglas; Shirley Hodgson; Lisa Walker; Mary E Porteous; Patrick J Morrison; Lucy E Side; M John Kennedy; Catherine Houghton; Alan Donaldson; Mark T Rogers; Huw Dorkins; Zosia Miedzybrodzka; Helen Gregory; Jacqueline Eason; Julian Barwell; Emma McCann; Alex Murray; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Biesecker; J L Benkendorf; J Kerner; A Gomez-Caminero; C Hughes; M M Reed
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1997-01-15       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Coping disposition, perceived risk, and psychological distress among women at increased risk for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  M D Schwartz; C Lerman; S M Miller; M Daly; A Masny
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 4.267

7.  Colorectal cancer: a survey of community beliefs and behaviours in Victoria.

Authors:  R J Thomas; V A Clarke
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1998-07-06       Impact factor: 7.738

8.  Breast cancer worry and mammography use by women with and without a family history in a population-based sample.

Authors:  M Robyn Andersen; Robert Smith; H Meischke; D Bowen; N Urban
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  A randomized trial of breast cancer risk counseling: interacting effects of counseling, educational level, and coping style.

Authors:  C Lerman; M D Schwartz; S M Miller; M Daly; C Sands; B K Rimer
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.267

10.  Spinocerebellar ataxia: patient and health professional perspectives on whether and how patents affect access to clinical genetic testing.

Authors:  Ashton Powell; Subhashini Chandrasekharan; Robert Cook-Deegan
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Referral frequency, attrition rate, and outcomes of germline testing in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Evan J Walker; Julia Carnevale; Christina Pedley; Amie Blanco; Salina Chan; Eric A Collisson; Margaret A Tempero; Andrew H Ko
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Genesurance Counseling: Genetic Counselors' Roles and Responsibilities in Regards to Genetic Insurance and Financial Topics.

Authors:  Shelby Brown; Susan Puumala; Jennifer Leonhard; Megan Bell; Jason Flanagan; Lori Williamson Dean; Quinn Stein
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  National Estimates of Genetic Testing in Women With a History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Christopher P Childers; Kimberly K Childers; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; James Macinko
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Saliva samples as a source of DNA for high throughput genotyping: an acceptable and sufficient means in improvement of risk estimation throughout mammographic diagnostics.

Authors:  U G Poehls; C C Hack; A B Ekici; M W Beckmann; P A Fasching; M Ruebner; H Huebner
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 2.175

6.  How psychological distance of a study sample in discrete choice experiments affects preference measurement: a colorectal cancer screening case study.

Authors:  Jorien Veldwijk; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Ulrik Kihlbom; Sophie Langenskiöld; Evelien Dekker; Frank G J Kallenberg; G Ardine de Wit; Mattijs S Lambooij
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 2.711

7.  Knowledge, Attitudes, Willingness to Pay, and Patient Preferences About Genetic Testing and Subsequent Risk Management for Cancer Prevention.

Authors:  Fangjian Guo; Jacqueline M Hirth; Erika L Fuchs; Leslie E Cofie; Veronica Brown; Yong-Fang Kuo; Maria E Fernandez; Abbey B Berenson
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 2.037

8.  Disparities in precision medicine-Examining germline genetic counseling and testing patterns among men with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hala T Borno; Anobel Y Odisho; Christine M Gunn; Magdalena Pankowska; Jennifer R Rider
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 2.954

9.  Disentangling the determinants of interest and willingness-to-pay for breast cancer susceptibility testing in the general population: a cross-sectional Web-based survey among women of Québec (Canada).

Authors:  Jolyane Blouin-Bougie; Nabil Amara; Karine Bouchard; Jacques Simard; Michel Dorval
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 2.692

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.