Niall Davison1, Katherine Payne1, Martin Eden1, Marion McAllister2, Stephen A Roberts3, Stuart Ingram4, Graeme C M Black4, Georgina Hall4. 1. Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2. School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 3. Centre for Biostatistics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 4. Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Broadening access to genomic testing and counseling will be necessary to realize the benefits of personalized health care. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of delivering a standardized genomic care model for inherited retinal dystrophy (IRD) and of using selected measures to quantify its impact on patients. METHODS: A pre-/post- prospective cohort study recruited 98 patients affected by IRD to receive standardized multidisciplinary care. A checklist was used to assess the fidelity of the care process. Three patient-reported outcome measures-the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS-24), the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A), and the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D)-and a resource-use questionnaire were administered to investigate rates of missingness, ceiling effects, and changes over time. RESULTS: The care model was delivered consistently. Higher rates of missingness were found for the genetic-specific measure (GCOS-24). Considerable ceiling effects were observed for the generic measure (EQ-5D). The ICECAP-A yielded less missing data without significant ceiling effects. It was feasible to use telephone interviews for follow-up data collection. CONCLUSION: The study highlighted challenges and solutions associated with efforts to standardize genomic care for IRD. The study identified appropriate methods for a future definitive study to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the care model.Genet Med advance online publication 02 March 2017.
PURPOSE: Broadening access to genomic testing and counseling will be necessary to realize the benefits of personalized health care. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of delivering a standardized genomic care model for inherited retinal dystrophy (IRD) and of using selected measures to quantify its impact on patients. METHODS: A pre-/post- prospective cohort study recruited 98 patients affected by IRD to receive standardized multidisciplinary care. A checklist was used to assess the fidelity of the care process. Three patient-reported outcome measures-the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS-24), the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A), and the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D)-and a resource-use questionnaire were administered to investigate rates of missingness, ceiling effects, and changes over time. RESULTS: The care model was delivered consistently. Higher rates of missingness were found for the genetic-specific measure (GCOS-24). Considerable ceiling effects were observed for the generic measure (EQ-5D). The ICECAP-A yielded less missing data without significant ceiling effects. It was feasible to use telephone interviews for follow-up data collection. CONCLUSION: The study highlighted challenges and solutions associated with efforts to standardize genomic care for IRD. The study identified appropriate methods for a future definitive study to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the care model.Genet Med advance online publication 02 March 2017.
Authors: Mark Harrison; Stephen Birch; Martin Eden; Simon Ramsden; Tracey Farragher; Katherine Payne; Georgina Hall; Graeme Cm Black Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2015-01-09
Authors: Robert C Green; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Paul S Appelbaum; Jonathan S Berg; Barbara A Bernhardt; Leslie G Biesecker; Sawona Biswas; Carrie L Blout; Kevin M Bowling; Kyle B Brothers; Wylie Burke; Charlisse F Caga-Anan; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Wendy K Chung; Ellen W Clayton; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Levi A Garraway; Jeremy R Garrett; Stacy W Gray; Gail E Henderson; Lucia A Hindorff; Ingrid A Holm; Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Carolyn M Hutter; Pasi A Janne; Steven Joffe; David Kaufman; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Ian D Krantz; Teri A Manolio; Laurence McCullough; Jean McEwen; Amy McGuire; Donna Muzny; Richard M Myers; Deborah A Nickerson; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Gloria M Petersen; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; J Scott Roberts; Dan Robinson; Joseph S Salama; Sarah Scollon; Richard R Sharp; Brian Shirts; Nancy B Spinner; Holly K Tabor; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; David L Veenstra; Nikhil Wagle; Karen Weck; Benjamin S Wilfond; Kirk Wilhelmsen; Susan M Wolf; Julia Wynn; Joon-Ho Yu Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Konstantinos N Lazaridis; Kimberly A Schahl; Margot A Cousin; Dusica Babovic-Vuksanovic; Douglas L Riegert-Johnson; Ralitza H Gavrilova; Tammy M McAllister; Noralane M Lindor; Roshini S Abraham; Michael J Ackerman; Pavel N Pichurin; David R Deyle; Dimitar K Gavrilov; Jennifer L Hand; Eric W Klee; Michael C Stephens; Myra J Wick; Elizabeth J Atkinson; David R Linden; Matthew J Ferber; Eric D Wieben; Gianrico Farrugia Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Hareth Al-Janabi; Tim J Peters; John Brazier; Stirling Bryan; Terry N Flynn; Sam Clemens; Alison Moody; Joanna Coast Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-10-20 Impact factor: 4.147