Value-based genomic screening: exploring genomic screening for chronic diseases using triple value principles.
Chronic disease
Genomics
Prevention
Screening
Value-based healthcare
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Nov 2019
11 Nov 2019
Historique:
received:
29
05
2019
accepted:
31
10
2019
entrez:
13
11
2019
pubmed:
13
11
2019
medline:
11
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Genomic screening has unique challenges which makes it difficult to easily implement on a wide scale. If the costs, benefits and tradeoffs of investing in genomic screening are not evaluated properly, there is a risk of wasting finite healthcare resources and also causing avoidable harm. If healthcare professionals - including policy makers, payers and providers - wish to incorporate genomic screening into healthcare while minimizing waste, maximizing benefits, and considering results that matter to patients, using the principles of triple value (allocative, technical, and personal value) could help them to evaluate tough decisions and tradeoffs. Allocative value focuses on the optimal distribution of limited healthcare resources to maximize the health benefits to the entire population while also accounting for all the costs of care delivery. Technical value ensures that for any given condition, the right intervention is chosen and delivered in the right way. Various methods (e.g. ACCE, HTA, and Wilson and Jungner screening criteria) exist that can help identify appropriate genomic applications. Personal value incorporates preference based informed decision making to ensure that patients are informed about the benefits and harms of the choices available to them and to ensure they make choices based on their values and preferences. Using triple value principles can help healthcare professionals make reasoned and tough judgements about benefits and tradeoffs when they are exploring the role genomic screening for chronic diseases could play in improving the health of their patients and populations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Genomic screening has unique challenges which makes it difficult to easily implement on a wide scale. If the costs, benefits and tradeoffs of investing in genomic screening are not evaluated properly, there is a risk of wasting finite healthcare resources and also causing avoidable harm.
MAIN TEXT
METHODS
If healthcare professionals - including policy makers, payers and providers - wish to incorporate genomic screening into healthcare while minimizing waste, maximizing benefits, and considering results that matter to patients, using the principles of triple value (allocative, technical, and personal value) could help them to evaluate tough decisions and tradeoffs. Allocative value focuses on the optimal distribution of limited healthcare resources to maximize the health benefits to the entire population while also accounting for all the costs of care delivery. Technical value ensures that for any given condition, the right intervention is chosen and delivered in the right way. Various methods (e.g. ACCE, HTA, and Wilson and Jungner screening criteria) exist that can help identify appropriate genomic applications. Personal value incorporates preference based informed decision making to ensure that patients are informed about the benefits and harms of the choices available to them and to ensure they make choices based on their values and preferences.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Using triple value principles can help healthcare professionals make reasoned and tough judgements about benefits and tradeoffs when they are exploring the role genomic screening for chronic diseases could play in improving the health of their patients and populations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31711483
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4703-z
pii: 10.1186/s12913-019-4703-z
pmc: PMC6849239
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
823Subventions
Organisme : European Regional Development Fund
ID : GINOP 2.3.2-15-2016-00005
Organisme : H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
ID : Grant agreement number: 645740
Références
Eur J Hum Genet. 2011 Apr;19 Suppl 1:S6-44
pubmed: 21412252
New Bioeth. 2017 Apr;23(1):13-20
pubmed: 28517988
Eur J Hum Genet. 2018 Dec;26(12):1732-1742
pubmed: 30089825
Genet Med. 2006 Jul;8(7):448-50
pubmed: 16845278
Genet Med. 2016 Dec;18(12):1171-1180
pubmed: 27906166
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Feb 18;160(4):271-81
pubmed: 24366376
N Engl J Med. 1999 Jul 1;341(1):28-37
pubmed: 10387940
Healthc Pap. 2016;15(3):42-8
pubmed: 27009586
JAMA. 2008 Dec 10;300(22):2669-71
pubmed: 19066388
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003 Spring;19(2):301-16
pubmed: 12862188
Lancet. 2013 Apr 13;381(9874):1323-31
pubmed: 23541059
Eur J Hum Genet. 2018 May;26(5):605-615
pubmed: 29422659
New Bioeth. 2017 Apr;23(1):87-94
pubmed: 28517992
Bull World Health Organ. 2008 Apr;86(4):317-9
pubmed: 18438522
Genet Med. 2009 Jan;11(1):35-41
pubmed: 19125126
Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2018 Mar;6(2):213-223
pubmed: 29368425
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018 Feb;130:2-7
pubmed: 29402597
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Dec 18;147(12):871-5
pubmed: 18087058
Atheroscler Suppl. 2017 Nov;30:77-85
pubmed: 29096865
Health Expect. 2016 Dec;19(6):1203-1214
pubmed: 26332492
Health Manage Q. 1993;15(3):2-6
pubmed: 10129190
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;987:55-65
pubmed: 28971447
Eur J Hum Genet. 2015 Nov;23(11):1438-50
pubmed: 25782669
Front Public Health. 2017 Sep 12;5:243
pubmed: 28955708
Per Med. 2013 May;10(3):285-293
pubmed: 29768745
Genet Med. 2009 Jan;11(1):3-14
pubmed: 18813139
Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Jan-Feb;28(1):42-5
pubmed: 19124852
Eur J Hum Genet. 2013 Jun;21 Suppl 1:S1-5
pubmed: 23819146
Science. 2013 May 31;340(6136):1049-50
pubmed: 23686341
Eur J Public Health. 2014 Jun;24(3):349-50
pubmed: 24860145
Prev Chronic Dis. 2014 Apr 17;11:E62
pubmed: 24742395
Cureus. 2017 Mar 2;9(3):e1067
pubmed: 28409068
Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2016 Aug;11(4):303-10
pubmed: 27262855
BMJ. 2017 Jan 27;356:j437
pubmed: 28130219
BMC Med Ethics. 2011 Jun 14;12:11
pubmed: 21672210
Clin Med (Lond). 2012 Aug;12(4):346-50
pubmed: 22930881
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006 Summer;22(3):275-80; discussion 280-2
pubmed: 16984053
Genet Med. 2006 Jul;8(7):451-8
pubmed: 16845279
Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966 Jul;44(3):Suppl:166-206
pubmed: 5338568
J Public Health (Oxf). 2018 Dec 1;40(4):e552-e559
pubmed: 29897560
JAMA. 2014 Mar 12;311(10):1035-45
pubmed: 24618965
Genet Med. 2017 Feb;19(2):249-255
pubmed: 27854360