Tima Mohammadi1, Wei Zhang1,2, Julie Sou1, Sylvie Langlois3, Sarah Munro1,4, Aslam H Anis5,6. 1. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, 588-1081, Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada. 2. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 3. Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 4. Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 5. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, 588-1081, Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1Y6, Canada. aslam.anis@ubc.ca. 6. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. aslam.anis@ubc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies assessing preferences for prenatal screening have focused on preferences of the affected population and have largely assumed homogeneous preferences. We aimed to estimate public preferences and willingness to pay for prenatal screening and diagnosis from a Canadian general population sample, and to model preferences at the individual level. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was used to elicit preferences for different aspects of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies. Strategies differed in five attributes: timing of the results, false-negative rate, false-positive rate, risk of miscarriage, and out-of-pocket cost. Respondents made forced and unforced choices using a dual response approach. Hierarchical Bayes analysis was applied to estimate individual-level part-worth utilities. Individual probability and expected uptake of prenatal screening under different scenarios were also assessed. Subgroup analyses were conducted using individual-level preferences. RESULTS: The final analyses were based on a sample of 4601 respondents. Results showed that the two most important attributes were false-negative rate and miscarriage risk. There was significant heterogeneity in preferences among respondents. Individuals' perception of the risk of pregnancy with chromosomal abnormalities affected their preferences for screening. The relatively high uptake of safe and accurate screening among all groups of respondents indicated people's desire for information about the health of their unborn baby regardless of their decision to continue the pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Our findings are consistent with previous studies based on affected-population preferences. This concordance should be reassuring from a policy perspective and can inform the design of publicly funded prenatal screening programs.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies assessing preferences for prenatal screening have focused on preferences of the affected population and have largely assumed homogeneous preferences. We aimed to estimate public preferences and willingness to pay for prenatal screening and diagnosis from a Canadian general population sample, and to model preferences at the individual level. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was used to elicit preferences for different aspects of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies. Strategies differed in five attributes: timing of the results, false-negative rate, false-positive rate, risk of miscarriage, and out-of-pocket cost. Respondents made forced and unforced choices using a dual response approach. Hierarchical Bayes analysis was applied to estimate individual-level part-worth utilities. Individual probability and expected uptake of prenatal screening under different scenarios were also assessed. Subgroup analyses were conducted using individual-level preferences. RESULTS: The final analyses were based on a sample of 4601 respondents. Results showed that the two most important attributes were false-negative rate and miscarriage risk. There was significant heterogeneity in preferences among respondents. Individuals' perception of the risk of pregnancy with chromosomal abnormalities affected their preferences for screening. The relatively high uptake of safe and accurate screening among all groups of respondents indicated people's desire for information about the health of their unborn baby regardless of their decision to continue the pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Our findings are consistent with previous studies based on affected-population preferences. This concordance should be reassuring from a policy perspective and can inform the design of publicly funded prenatal screening programs.
Authors: Tima Mohammadi; Nick Bansback; Fawziah Marra; Amir Khakban; Jonathon R Campbell; J Mark FitzGerald; Larry D Lynd; Carlo A Marra Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 5.725
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: Ida Charlotte Bay Lund; Naja Becher; Olav Bjørn Petersen; Melissa Hill; Lyn Chitty; Ida Vogel Journal: Dan Med J Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 1.240
Authors: M Ryan; D A Scott; C Reeves; A Bate; E R van Teijlingen; E M Russell; M Napper; C M Robb Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2001 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Melissa Hill; Jo-Ann Johnson; Sylvie Langlois; Hyun Lee; Stephanie Winsor; Brigid Dineley; Marisa Horniachek; Faustina Lalatta; Luisa Ronzoni; Angela N Barrett; Henna V Advani; Mahesh Choolani; Ron Rabinowitz; Eva Pajkrt; Rachèl V van Schendel; Lidewij Henneman; Wieke Rommers; Caterina M Bilardo; Paula Rendeiro; Maria João Ribeiro; José Rocha; Ida Charlotte Bay Lund; Olav B Petersen; Naja Becher; Ida Vogel; Vigdis Stefánsdottir; Sigrun Ingvarsdottir; Helga Gottfredsdottir; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Cason Schmit; Hye-Chung Kum; Theodoros Giannouchos; Mahin Ramezani; Qi Zheng; Michael A Morrisey Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 7.076