Literature DB >> 28212966

Estimating Preferences for Complex Health Technologies: Lessons Learned and Implications for Personalized Medicine.

Deborah A Marshall1, Juan Marcos Gonzalez2, Karen V MacDonald3, F Reed Johnson4.   

Abstract

We examine key study design challenges of using stated-preference methods to estimate the value of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a specific example of genomic testing. Assessing the value of WGS is complex because WGS provides multiple findings, some of which can be incidental in nature and unrelated to the specific health concerns that motivated the test. In addition, WGS results can include actionable findings (variants considered to be clinically useful and can be acted on), findings for which evidence for best clinical action is not available (variants considered clinically valid but do not meet as high of a standard for clinical usefulness), and findings of unknown significance. We consider three key challenges encountered in designing our national study on the value of WGS-layers of uncertainty, potential downstream consequences with endogenous aspects, and both positive and negative utility associated with testing information-and potential solutions as strategies to address these challenges. We conceptualized the decision to acquire WGS information as a series of sequential choices that are resolved separately. To determine the value of WGS information at the initial decision to undergo WGS, we used contingent valuation questions, and to elicit respondent preferences for reducing risks of health problems and the consequences of taking the steps to reduce these risks, we used a discrete-choice experiment. We conclude by considering the implications for evaluating the value of other complex health technologies that involve multiple forms of uncertainty.
Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  choice behavior; discrete-choice experiment; genetic testing; patient acceptance of health care; patient preference; personalized medicine

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28212966      PMCID: PMC5319756          DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.08.737

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  25 in total

1.  The economics of genomic medicine: insights from the IOM Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health.

Authors:  W Gregory Feero; Catherine Wicklund; David L Veenstra
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Choice Experiments to Quantify Preferences for Health and Healthcare: State of the Practice.

Authors:  Axel Mühlbacher; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.561

3.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force.

Authors:  A Brett Hauber; Juan Marcos González; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Thomas Prior; Deborah A Marshall; Charles Cunningham; Maarten J IJzerman; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment.

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

5.  Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force.

Authors:  F Reed Johnson; Emily Lancsar; Deborah Marshall; Vikram Kilambi; Axel Mühlbacher; Dean A Regier; Brian W Bresnahan; Barbara Kanninen; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  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

7.  Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing.

Authors:  Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Gerard T Berry; Leslie G Biesecker; David P Dimmock; James P Evans; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri R Hegde; Sarah Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Ian Krantz; Amy L McGuire; David T Miller; Michael F Murray; Robert L Nussbaum; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; Howard J Jacob
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Muin J Khoury; James P Evans
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Guidelines for return of research results from pediatric genomic studies: deliberations of the Boston Children's Hospital Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board.

Authors:  Ingrid A Holm; Sarah K Savage; Robert C Green; Eric Juengst; Amy McGuire; Susan Kornetsky; Stephanie J Brewster; Steven Joffe; Patrick Taylor
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Researchers' views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findings.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum; Abby Fyer; Josue Martinez; Brigitte Buquez; Julia Wynn; Cameron R Waldman; Jo Phelan; Erik Parens; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  3 in total

1.  A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Semra Ozdemir; Jia Jia Lee; Isha Chaudhry; Remee Rose Quintana Ocampo
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Exome Analysis as a Diagnostic Test in Glomerular Diseases.

Authors:  Kushani Jayasinghe; You Wu; Zornitza Stark; Peter G Kerr; Andrew J Mallett; Clara Gaff; Melissa Martyn; Ilias Goranitis; Catherine Quinlan
Journal:  Kidney Int Rep       Date:  2021-09-08
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.