Literature DB >> 34687653

Conceptualization of utility in translational clinical genomics research.

Hadley Stevens Smith1, Kyle B Brothers2, Sara J Knight3, Sara L Ackerman4, Christine Rini5, David L Veenstra6, Amy L McGuire7, Benjamin S Wilfond8, Janet Malek7.   

Abstract

Prior to integration into clinical care, a novel medical innovation is typically assessed in terms of its balance of benefits and risks, often referred to as utility. Members of multidisciplinary research teams may conceptualize and assess utility in different ways, which has implications within the translational genomics community and for the evidence base upon which clinical guidelines groups and healthcare payers make decisions. Ambiguity in the conceptualization of utility in translational genomics research can lead to communication challenges within research teams and to study designs that do not meet stakeholder needs. We seek to address the ambiguity challenge by describing the conceptual understanding of utility and use of the term by scholars in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and the social sciences of decision psychology and health economics. We illustrate applications of each field's orientation to translational genomics research by using examples from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and we provide recommendations for increasing clarity and cohesion in future research. Given that different understandings of utility will align to a greater or lesser degree with important stakeholders' views, more precise use of the term can help researchers to better integrate multidisciplinary investigations and communicate with stakeholders.
Copyright © 2021 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34687653      PMCID: PMC8595895          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.08.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  52 in total

1.  The Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) Questionnaire: Development and Preliminary Validation.

Authors:  Meng Li; Caroline S Bennette; Laura M Amendola; M Ragan Hart; Patrick Heagerty; Bryan Comstock; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; Stephanie M Fullerton; Dean A Regier; Wylie Burke; Susan B Trinidad; Gail P Jarvik; David L Veenstra; Donald L Patrick
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

Authors:  A Tversky; D Kahneman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1974-09-27       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 3.  Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Jennefer N Kohler; Erin Turbitt; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Defining personal utility in genomics: A Delphi study.

Authors:  J N Kohler; E Turbitt; K L Lewis; B S Wilfond; L Jamal; H L Peay; L G Biesecker; B B Biesecker
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 5.  Bridging the Gaps in Personalized Medicine Value Assessment: A Review of the Need for Outcome Metrics across Stakeholders and Scientific Disciplines.

Authors:  William S Bush; Jessica N Cooke Bailey; Mark F Beno; Dana C Crawford
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

Authors:  Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Kyle Brothers; Ellen W Clayton; Wendy Chung; Barbara J Evans; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Carlos J Gallego; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Stacy W Gray; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Cathy McCarty; Cynthia A Prows; Heidi L Rehm; Richard R Sharp; Joseph Salama; Saskia Sanderson; Sara L Van Driest; Marc S Williams; Susan M Wolf; Wendy A Wolf; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  The effects of diversity and network ties on innovations: The emergence of a new scientific field.

Authors:  Alina Lungeanu; Noshir S Contractor
Journal:  Am Behav Sci       Date:  2014-11-14

8.  The cost-effectiveness of returning incidental findings from next-generation genomic sequencing.

Authors:  Caroline S Bennette; Carlos J Gallego; Wylie Burke; Gail P Jarvik; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Navigating the research-clinical interface in genomic medicine: analysis from the CSER Consortium.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Wendy K Chung; Ellen Wright Clayton; Robert C Green; Julie Harris-Wai; Gail E Henderson; Gail P Jarvik; Barbara A Koenig; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Amy L McGuire; Pearl O'Rourke; Carol Somkin; Benjamin S Wilfond; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Cost-effectiveness of Population-Wide Genomic Screening for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Authors:  Gregory F Guzauskas; Shawn Garbett; Zilu Zhou; Scott J Spencer; Hadley S Smith; Jing Hao; Dina Hassen; Susan R Snyder; John A Graves; Josh F Peterson; Marc S Williams; David L Veenstra
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-10-01
View more
  1 in total

1.  Measures of Utility Among Studies of Genomic Medicine for Critically Ill Infants: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Katharine Press Callahan; Rebecca Mueller; John Flibotte; Emily A Largent; Chris Feudtner
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-08-01
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.