Literature DB >> 26085127

Valuing Preferences for the Process and Outcomes of Clinical Genetics Services: A Pilot Study.

Ewan Gray1, Martin Eden1, Caroline Vass1, Marion McAllister2, Jordan Louviere3, Katherine Payne4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding preferences for the process and outcomes of clinical genetics services (CGS) is a first step to developing these services appropriately. AIM: The aim of this study was to quantify the relative importance of attributes defining the process of service delivery and the patient outcomes of CGS.
METHODS: An online hybrid conjoint analysis discrete choice experiment (CA-DCE) was piloted in a purposive sample (n = 37) of CGS patients and non-patients to identify (i) service attributes (n = 13) perceived to facilitate informed decision making; (ii) relative preferences for six attributes (5 process, 1 outcome: ability to make an informed decision). A three-step approach was taken to link the data from the CA-DCE using hierarchical information integration and ordered logit and multinomial logit models. Marginal willingness-to-pay (WTP) values were calculated.
RESULTS: Services that facilitate informed decision making, with shorter waiting times and involving pre-consultation contact were preferred. Estimated WTP values were: service location (£3170; 95% CI -391 to 15,098); waiting time (-£1080; 95% CI -3659 to -603); pre-consultation contact (£7765; 95% CI 2542-33,937); improved informed decision making (£2254; 95% CI 775-9866).
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that hybrid stated preference experiments offer a practical solution to understanding preferences for how CGS services are delivered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26085127     DOI: 10.1007/s40271-015-0133-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient        ISSN: 1178-1653            Impact factor:   3.883


  22 in total

1.  What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Jane Hall; Denzil G Fiebig; Madeleine T King; Ishrat Hossain; Jordan J Louviere
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2005-10-21       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  A new definition of Genetic Counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors' Task Force report.

Authors:  Robert Resta; Barbara Bowles Biesecker; Robin L Bennett; Sandra Blum; Susan Estabrooks Hahn; Michelle N Strecker; Janet L Williams
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Coming full circle: a reciprocal-engagement model of genetic counseling practice.

Authors:  Patricia McCarthy Veach; Dianne M Bartels; Bonnie S Leroy
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-13       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan; Verity Watson; Vikki Entwistle
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  The Client's Perspective of Genetic Counseling-A Grounded Theory Study.

Authors:  H Skirton
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  The Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale: a new patient-reported outcome measure for clinical genetics services.

Authors:  M McAllister; A M Wood; G Dunn; S Shiloh; C Todd
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2011-02-14       Impact factor: 4.438

8.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Social system responses to Huntington disease.

Authors:  S Kessler; M Bloch
Journal:  Fam Process       Date:  1989-03

10.  Patient satisfaction with two different models of cancer genetic services in south-east Scotland.

Authors:  S Holloway; M Porteous; R Cetnarskyj; E Anderson; R Rush; A Fry; D Gorman; M Steel; H Campbell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-02-09       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  4 in total

1.  A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Ellen M Janssen; Jodi B Segal; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Rapid Identification of Pathogenic Variants in Two Cases of Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease by Gene-Panel Sequencing.

Authors:  Chi-Chun Ho; Shuk-Mui Tai; Edmond Chi-Nam Lee; Timothy Shin-Heng Mak; Timothy Kam-Tim Liu; Victor Wai-Lun Tang; Wing-Tat Poon
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 5.923

3.  The Fold-in, Fold-out Design for DCE Choice Tasks: Application to Burden of Disease.

Authors:  Lucas M A Goossens; Marcel F Jonker; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Melinde R S Boland; Annerika H M Slok; Philippe L Salomé; Onno C P van Schayck; Johannes C C M In 't Veen; Elly A Stolk; Bas Donkers
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Understanding Midwives' Preferences for Providing Information About Newborn Bloodspot Screening.

Authors:  Stuart James Wright; Fiona Ulph; Tina Lavender; Nimarta Dharni; Katherine Payne
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2018-01-18
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.