The personal utility and uptake of genomic sequencing in pediatric and adult conditions: eliciting societal preferences with three discrete choice experiments.
genetic conditions
next-generation sequencing
preferences
uptake
utility
Journal
Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics
ISSN: 1530-0366
Titre abrégé: Genet Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9815831
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
28
11
2019
accepted:
02
04
2020
revised:
01
04
2020
pubmed:
7
5
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
entrez:
7
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To estimate the personal utility and uptake of genomic sequencing (GS) across pediatric and adult-onset genetic conditions. Three discrete choice experiment (DCE) surveys were designed and administered to separate representative samples of the Australian public. Bayesian D-efficient explicit partial profile designs were used. Choice data were analyzed using a panel error component random parameter logit model. Overall, 1913 participants completed the pediatric (n = 533), symptomatic adult (n = 700) and at-risk adult (n = 680) surveys. The willingness-to-pay for GS information in pediatric conditions was estimated at $5470-$15,250 (US$3830-$10,675) depending on the benefits of genomic information. Uptake ranged between 60% and 81%. For symptomatic adults, the value of GS was estimated at $1573-$8102 (US$1100-$5671) and uptake at 34-82%. For at-risk adults, GS was valued at $2036-$5004 (US$1425-$3503) and uptake was predicted at 35-61%. There is substantial personal utility in GS, particularly for pediatric conditions. Personal utility increased as the perceived benefits of genomic information increased. The clinical and regulatory context, and individuals' sociodemographic and attitudinal characteristics influenced the value and uptake of GS. Society values highly the diagnostic, clinical, and nonclinical benefits of GS. The personal utility of GS should be considered in health-care decision-making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32371919
doi: 10.1038/s41436-020-0809-2
pii: S1098-3600(21)00691-2
pmc: PMC7394876
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1311-1319Références
Stark Z, Dolman L, Manolio TA, et al. Integrating genomics into healthcare: a global responsibility. Am J Hum Genet. 2019;104:13–20.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.014
Bilkey G, Burns BL, Coles EP, et al. Genomic testing for human health and disease across the life cycle: applications and ethical, legal and social challenges. Front Public Health. 2019;7:40.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00040
Manolio TA, Chisholm RL, Ozenberger B, et al. Implementing genomic medicine in the clinic: the future is here. Genet Med. 2013;15:258.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.157
Roberts MC, Mensah GA, Khoury MJ. Leveraging implementation science to address health disparities in genomic medicine: examples from the field. Ethn Dis. 2019;29 Suppl 1:187–192.
doi: 10.18865/ed.29.S1.187
Phillips KA, Deverka PA, Marshall DA, et al. Methodological issues in assessing the economic value of next-generation sequencing tests: many challenges and not enough solutions. Value Health. 2018;21:1033–1042.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.06.017
Grosse SD, Rasmussen SA. Exome sequencing: value is in the eye of the beholder. Genet Med. 2020;22:280–282.
doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0674-z
Regier DA, Weymann D, Buchanan J, Marshall DA, Wordsworth S. Valuation of health and nonhealth outcomes from next-generation sequencing: approaches, challenges, and solutions. Value Health. 2018;21:1043–1047.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.06.010
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–677.
doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004
Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2007.
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:201–226.
doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316136232
Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16:3–13.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
Coast J. Qualitative methods for health economics. London: Rowman & Littlefield International; 2017.
Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:25–30.
doi: 10.1258/135581907779497602
Best S, Stark Z, Phillips P, et al. Clinical genomic testing: what matters to key stakeholders? Eur J Hum Genet. 2020 Feb 5; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-0576-1 [Epub ahead of print].
Financial Services Council (FSC). FSC standard no. 11: moratorium on genetic tests in life Insurance. Sydney, Australia: FSC; 2019.
Peyron C, Pélissier A, Béjean S. Preference heterogeneity with respect to whole genome sequencing. A discrete choice experiment among parents of children with rare genetic diseases. Soc Sci Med. 2018;214:125–132.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.015
Regier DA, Peacock SJ, Pataky R, et al. Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment. CMAJ. 2015;187:E190–E7.
doi: 10.1503/cmaj.140697
ChoiceMetrics. User manual & reference guide. Ngene 1.2 ed. Sydney, Australia; 2018.
Kessels R, Jones B, Goos P. Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments with partial profiles. J Choice Modell. 2011;4:52–74.
doi: 10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70042-3
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Saloman J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Census QuickStats. 2016. https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036 . Accessed August 2019.
Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA). Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research: University of Melbourne, Melbourne. 2018.
Small KA, Rosen HS. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica. 1981;49:105–130.
doi: 10.2307/1911129
Marshall DA, MacDonald KV, Heidenreich S, et al. The value of diagnostic testing for parents of children with rare genetic diseases. Genet Med. 2019;21:2798–2806.
doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0583-1
Regier DA, Veenstra DL, Basu A, Carlson JJ. Demand for precision medicine: a discrete-choice experiment and external validation study. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38:57–68.
doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00834-0
Weymann D, Veenstra DL, Jarvik GP, Regier DA. Patient preferences for massively parallel sequencing genetic testing of colorectal cancer risk: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018;26:1257–1265.
doi: 10.1038/s41431-018-0161-z
Buchanan J, Wordsworth S. Evaluating the outcomes associated with genomic sequencing: a roadmap for future research. Pharmacoecon Open. 2019;3:129–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-018-0101-4 .
Buchanan J, Wordsworth S, Schuh A. Issues surrounding the health economic evaluation of genomic technologies. Pharmacogenomics. 2013;14:1833–1847.
doi: 10.2217/pgs.13.183
Marshall DA, Deal K, Bombard Y, Leighl N, MacDonald KV, Trudeau M. How do women trade-off benefits and risks in chemotherapy treatment decisions based on gene expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer? A discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010981.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010981
Marshall DA, Gonzalez JM, MacDonald KV, Johnson FR. Estimating preferences for complex health technologies: lessons learned and implications for personalized medicine. Value Health. 2017;20:32–39.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.08.737
Regier D, Friedman J, Makela N, Ryan M, Marra C. Valuing the benefit of diagnostic testing for genetic causes of idiopathic developmental disability: willingness to pay from families of affected children. Clin Genet. 2009;75:514–521.
doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01193.x
Erev I, Ert E, Roth AE, et al. A choice prediction competition: choices from experience and from description. J Behav Decis Mak. 2010;23:15–47.
doi: 10.1002/bdm.683
Quaife M, Terris-Prestholt F, Di Tanna GL, Vickerman P. How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19:1053–1066.
doi: 10.1007/s10198-018-0954-6
Zentner D, Thompson TN, James PA, et al. The cardiac genetics clinic: a model for multidisciplinary genomic medicine. Med J Aust. 2015;203:261.
doi: 10.5694/mja14.01674
Sharaf RN, Myer P, Stave CD, Diamond LC, Ladabaum U. Uptake of genetic testing by relatives of Lynch syndrome probands: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:1093–1100.
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.04.044
Forrest L, Delatycki M, Curnow L, Couns MG, Skene L, Aitken M. An audit of clinical service examining the uptake of genetic testing by at-risk family members. Genet Med. 2012;14:122.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2011.3
Christiaans I, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ, Wilde AA, Van Langen IM. Uptake of genetic counselling and predictive DNA testing in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Eur J Hum Genet. 2008;16:1201.
doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2008.92
Miller EM, Wang Y, Ware SM. Uptake of cardiac screening and genetic testing among hypertrophic and dilated cardiomyopathy families. J Genet Couns. 2013;22:258–267.
doi: 10.1007/s10897-012-9544-4