Literature DB >> 29385590

Effect of co-payment on behavioral response to consumer genomic testing.

Wendy Liu1, Jessica J Outlaw1, Nathan Wineinger2, Debra Boeldt2, Cinnamon S Bloss3,4.   

Abstract

Existing research in consumer behavior suggests that perceptions and usage of a product post-purchase depends, in part, on how the product was marketed, including price paid. In the current study, we examine the effect of providing an out-of-pocket co-payment for consumer genomic testing (CGT) on consumer post-purchase behavior using both correlational field evidence and a hypothetical online experiment. Participants were enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study of the impact of CGT and completed behavioral assessments before and after receipt of CGT results. Most participants provided a co-payment for the test (N = 1668), while others (N = 369) received fully subsidized testing. The two groups were compared regarding changes in health behaviors and post-test use of health care resources. Participants who paid were more likely to share results with their physician (p = .012) and obtain follow-up health screenings (p = .005) relative to those who received fully subsidized testing. A follow-up online experiment in which participants (N = 303) were randomized to a "fully-subsidized" versus "co-payment" condition found that simulating provision of a co-payment significantly increased intentions to seek follow-up screening tests (p = .050) and perceptions of the test results as more trustworthy (p = .02). Provision of an out-of-pocket co-payment for CGT may influence consumer's post-purchase behavior consistent with a price placebo effect. Cognitive dissonance or sunk cost may help explain the increase in screening propensity among paying consumers. Such individuals may obtain follow-up screenings to validate their initial decision to expend personal resources to obtain CGT. © Society of Behavioral Medicine 2018.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Direct-to-consumer genetics; Genomics; Health economics; Patient decision-making; Precision medicine; Price placebo effect

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29385590      PMCID: PMC6065536          DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibx057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Behav Med        ISSN: 1613-9860            Impact factor:   3.046


  11 in total

1.  Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Joshua T Cohen; James K Hammitt; Thomas W Concannon; Hannah R Auerbach; Chihui Fang; David M Kent
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-12-28       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Commercial features of placebo and therapeutic efficacy.

Authors:  Rebecca L Waber; Baba Shiv; Ziv Carmon; Dan Ariely
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Impact of decreasing copayments on medication adherence within a disease management environment.

Authors:  Michael E Chernew; Mayur R Shah; Arnold Wegh; Stephen N Rosenberg; Iver A Juster; Allison B Rosen; Michael C Sokol; Kristina Yu-Isenberg; A Mark Fendrick
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2008 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk.

Authors:  Cinnamon S Bloss; Nicholas J Schork; Eric J Topol
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Consumer Perceptions of Interactions With Primary Care Providers After Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing.

Authors:  Cathelijne H van der Wouden; Deanna Alexis Carere; Anke H Maitland-van der Zee; Mack T Ruffin; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Sarah E Gollust; Deanna Alexis Carere; Clara A Chen; Angel Cronin; Sarah S Kalia; Huma Q Rana; Mack T Ruffin; Catharine Wang; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts; L Adrienne Cupples; Norman R Relkin; Peter J Whitehouse; Tamsen Brown; Susan LaRusse Eckert; Melissa Butson; A Dessa Sadovnick; Kimberly A Quaid; Clara Chen; Robert Cook-Deegan; Lindsay A Farrer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  The effect of communicating the genetic risk of cardiometabolic disorders on motivation and actual engagement in preventative lifestyle modification and clinical outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Sherly X Li; Zheng Ye; Kevin Whelan; Helen Truby
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 3.718

9.  Diet and exercise changes following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing.

Authors:  Daiva Elena Nielsen; Deanna Alexis Carere; Catharine Wang; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 3.063

Review 10.  The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gareth J Hollands; David P French; Simon J Griffin; A Toby Prevost; Stephen Sutton; Sarah King; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-03-15
View more
  2 in total

1.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Clinical and Public Health Genomics: Opportunities for translational behavioral medicine research, practice, and policy.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Michael J Hall; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Genomic health data generation in the UK: a 360 view.

Authors:  Elizabeth Ormondroyd; Peter Border; Judith Hayward; Andrew Papanikitas
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 5.351

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.