Susan Garfeld1, Michael P Douglas2, Karen V MacDonald3, Deborah A Marshall3, Kathryn A Phillips2. 1. GfK, 21 Cochituate Road Wayland, MA 01778, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Center for Translational & Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), University of California at San Francisco, 3333 California St, Room 420, Box 0613 San Francisco, CA 94143 USA. 3. Health Research Innovation Centre (HRIC) - 3C62, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z6, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Knowledge of consumer perspectives of personalized medicine (PM) is limited. Our study assessed consumer perspectives of PM, with a focus on oncology care, to inform industry, clinician and payer stakeholders' programs and policy. MATERIALS & METHODS: A nationally representative survey of 602 US consumers' ≥30 years old explored familiarity, perspectives and expected value of PM. RESULTS: Most (73%) respondents have not heard of 'personalized medicine,' though after understanding the term most (95%) expect PM to have a positive beneft. Consumer's willingness to pay is associated with products' impact on survival, rather than predicting disease risk. If testing indicates consumers are not candidates for oncology therapies, most (84%) would seek a second opinion or want therapy anyway. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding heterogeneity in consumer perspectives of PM can inform program and policy development.
AIMS: Knowledge of consumer perspectives of personalized medicine (PM) is limited. Our study assessed consumer perspectives of PM, with a focus on oncology care, to inform industry, clinician and payer stakeholders' programs and policy. MATERIALS & METHODS: A nationally representative survey of 602 US consumers' ≥30 years old explored familiarity, perspectives and expected value of PM. RESULTS: Most (73%) respondents have not heard of 'personalized medicine,' though after understanding the term most (95%) expect PM to have a positive beneft. Consumer's willingness to pay is associated with products' impact on survival, rather than predicting disease risk. If testing indicates consumers are not candidates for oncology therapies, most (84%) would seek a second opinion or want therapy anyway. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding heterogeneity in consumer perspectives of PM can inform program and policy development.
Entities:
Keywords:
consumers; education; knowledge; oncology; personalized medicine; perspectives; value
Authors: Gary Claxton; Matthew Rae; Nirmita Panchal; Anthony Damico; Heidi Whitmore; Nathan Bostick; Kevin Kenward Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 6.301
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: Lynn G Dressler; Sondra Smolek Jones; Janell M Markey; Katherine W Byerly; Megan C Roberts Journal: Genet Test Mol Biomarkers Date: 2014-02-04
Authors: Tara J Schmidlen; Lisa Wawak; Rachel Kasper; J Felipe García-España; Michael F Christman; Erynn S Gordon Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Deborah A Marshall; Karen V MacDonald; Jill Oliver Robinson; Lisa F Barcellos; Milena Gianfrancesco; Monica Helm; Amy McGuire; Robert C Green; Michael P Douglas; Michael A Goldman; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Per Med Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Deborah A Marshall; Juan Marcos Gonzalez; F Reed Johnson; Karen V MacDonald; Amy Pugh; Michael P Douglas; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 8.822