Advanced

Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment

Severin, Franziska; Hess, Wolfgang LU ; Schmidtke, Jörg; Mühlbacher, Axel and Rogowski, Wolf (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:
author
organization
publishing date
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
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
2014-05-27 11:49:06
date last changed
2017-10-22 03:31:50
@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},
  volume       = {119},
  year         = {2015},
}