» Articles » PMID: 28212966

Estimating Preferences for Complex Health Technologies: Lessons Learned and Implications for Personalized Medicine

Overview
Journal Value Health
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2017 Feb 19
PMID 28212966
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We examine key study design challenges of using stated-preference methods to estimate the value of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a specific example of genomic testing. Assessing the value of WGS is complex because WGS provides multiple findings, some of which can be incidental in nature and unrelated to the specific health concerns that motivated the test. In addition, WGS results can include actionable findings (variants considered to be clinically useful and can be acted on), findings for which evidence for best clinical action is not available (variants considered clinically valid but do not meet as high of a standard for clinical usefulness), and findings of unknown significance. We consider three key challenges encountered in designing our national study on the value of WGS-layers of uncertainty, potential downstream consequences with endogenous aspects, and both positive and negative utility associated with testing information-and potential solutions as strategies to address these challenges. We conceptualized the decision to acquire WGS information as a series of sequential choices that are resolved separately. To determine the value of WGS information at the initial decision to undergo WGS, we used contingent valuation questions, and to elicit respondent preferences for reducing risks of health problems and the consequences of taking the steps to reduce these risks, we used a discrete-choice experiment. We conclude by considering the implications for evaluating the value of other complex health technologies that involve multiple forms of uncertainty.

Citing Articles

What Next for the Science of Patient Preference? Interoperability, Standardization, and Transferability.

Marsh K, Gonzalez Sepulveda J, Berlin C, Levitan B, Boeri M, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C Patient. 2025; 18(2):101-108.

PMID: 39873903 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-025-00727-9.


Should Scotland provide genome-wide sequencing for the diagnosis of rare developmental disorders? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Abbott M, Ryan M, Hernandez R, McKenzie L, Heidenreich S, Hocking L Eur J Health Econ. 2024; .

PMID: 39249625 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01717-8.


QALYs and rare diseases: exploring the responsiveness of SF-6D, EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D following genomic testing for childhood and adult-onset rare genetic conditions in Australia.

Pan T, Wu Y, Buchanan J, Goranitis I Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023; 21(1):132.

PMID: 38087302 PMC: 10717517. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-023-02216-9.


Comment on: Taking the Shortcut: Simplifying Heuristics in Discrete Choice Experiments.

Reed Johnson F Patient. 2023; 16(4):289-292.

PMID: 37233871 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00629-8.


Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Exome Analysis as a Diagnostic Test in Glomerular Diseases.

Jayasinghe K, Wu Y, Stark Z, Kerr P, Mallett A, Gaff C Kidney Int Rep. 2021; 6(11):2850-2861.

PMID: 34805637 PMC: 8589690. DOI: 10.1016/j.ekir.2021.08.028.


References
1.
Hauber A, Gonzalez J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Prior T, Marshall D, Cunningham C . Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016; 19(4):300-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004. View

2.
Holm I, Savage S, Green R, Juengst E, McGuire A, Kornetsky S . Guidelines for return of research results from pediatric genomic studies: deliberations of the Boston Children's Hospital Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board. Genet Med. 2014; 16(7):547-52. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.190. View

3.
McGuire A, Burke W . An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA. 2008; 300(22):2669-71. PMC: 2789655. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2008.803. View

4.
Berg J, Khoury M, Evans J . Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med. 2011; 13(6):499-504. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e318220aaba. View

5.
Klitzman R, Appelbaum P, Fyer A, Martinez J, Buquez B, Wynn J . Researchers' views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findings. Genet Med. 2013; 15(11):888-95. PMC: 3823712. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.87. View