Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment
(2015) In Health Policy 119(2). p.164-173- Abstract
- As our understanding of genetics has increased, so has the number of genetic tests that have entered clinical practice. Given the need of many European health care systems to contain costs, the question of how to prioritise genetic tests fairly has become an emerging concern. This study uses a discrete-choice experiment to assess the value judgements of clinical geneticists, patient representatives and other stakeholders regarding the prioritisation of genetic tests. The respondents chose between two hypothetical scenarios that differed in severity of the disease, risk of the disease, aim of the test, medical benefit of the test, and costs of the test. Standard logit models and mixed effects models were used to estimate the weights... (More)
- As our understanding of genetics has increased, so has the number of genetic tests that have entered clinical practice. Given the need of many European health care systems to contain costs, the question of how to prioritise genetic tests fairly has become an emerging concern. This study uses a discrete-choice experiment to assess the value judgements of clinical geneticists, patient representatives and other stakeholders regarding the prioritisation of genetic tests. The respondents chose between two hypothetical scenarios that differed in severity of the disease, risk of the disease, aim of the test, medical benefit of the test, and costs of the test. Standard logit models and mixed effects models were used to estimate the weights different stakeholders attached to attribute levels. Responses from 594 participants were analysed. The most highly valued attribute levels were a proven medical benefit of the test, high risk of having the disease and low costs of the test. Results also showed that rankings differ between clinical geneticists and other stakeholders. The priority weights determined within this study can inform the policy debate and improve the consistency of prioritisation in genetics. Further stakeholder deliberation is needed to explore their most appropriate use in decision practice. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/4449098
- author
- Severin, Franziska ; Hess, Wolfgang LU ; Schmidtke, Jörg ; Mühlbacher, Axel and Rogowski, Wolf
- organization
- publishing date
- 2015
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Health Policy
- volume
- 119
- issue
- 2
- pages
- 164 - 173
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:24836022
- wos:000350077200007
- scopus:84922762050
- pmid:24836022
- ISSN
- 1872-6054
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.013
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- d701e732-7ae0-4a53-a8ca-d8489f4c5b87 (old id 4449098)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 11:14:49
- date last changed
- 2022-04-20 18:13:10
@article{d701e732-7ae0-4a53-a8ca-d8489f4c5b87,
abstract = {{As our understanding of genetics has increased, so has the number of genetic tests that have entered clinical practice. Given the need of many European health care systems to contain costs, the question of how to prioritise genetic tests fairly has become an emerging concern. This study uses a discrete-choice experiment to assess the value judgements of clinical geneticists, patient representatives and other stakeholders regarding the prioritisation of genetic tests. The respondents chose between two hypothetical scenarios that differed in severity of the disease, risk of the disease, aim of the test, medical benefit of the test, and costs of the test. Standard logit models and mixed effects models were used to estimate the weights different stakeholders attached to attribute levels. Responses from 594 participants were analysed. The most highly valued attribute levels were a proven medical benefit of the test, high risk of having the disease and low costs of the test. Results also showed that rankings differ between clinical geneticists and other stakeholders. The priority weights determined within this study can inform the policy debate and improve the consistency of prioritisation in genetics. Further stakeholder deliberation is needed to explore their most appropriate use in decision practice.}},
author = {{Severin, Franziska and Hess, Wolfgang and Schmidtke, Jörg and Mühlbacher, Axel and Rogowski, Wolf}},
issn = {{1872-6054}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{2}},
pages = {{164--173}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Health Policy}},
title = {{Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.013}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.013}},
volume = {{119}},
year = {{2015}},
}