ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2014
Criteria for fairly allocating scarce health-care resources to genetic tests: which matter most?
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A theory-informed systematic review of clinicians' genetic testing practices.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Pooled it
- Navigating Genetic Testing in Nephrology: Options and Decision-Making Strategies.Kidney international reports · 2025Review
- Conceptualising 'Benefits Beyond Health' in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Review
- Parental Attitudes Toward Clinical Genomic Sequencing in Children With Critical Cardiac Disease.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2021Article
- Contentious ethical issues in community genetics: let's talk about them.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Canadian genetic healthcare professionals' attitudes towards discussing private pay options with patients.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
- Healthcare System Priorities for Successful Integration of Genomics: An Australian Focus.Frontiers in public health · 2019Review
- Women's perspectives on the ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal testing: a qualitative analysis to inform health policy decisions.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Regulation of Internet-based Genetic Testing: Challenges for Australia and Other Jurisdictions.Frontiers in public health · 2018Article
- Opening Pandora's box?: ethical issues in prenatal whole genome and exome sequencing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2018Review
- Stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of genetic carrier screening in a changing landscape.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Barriers to clinical adoption of next-generation sequencing: a policy Delphi panel's solutions.Personalized medicine · 2017Article
- Ethical issues in preconception genetic carrier screening.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2016Article
- Patient and interest organizations' views on personalized medicine: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
- Points to consider for prioritizing clinical genetic testing services: a European consensus process oriented at accountability for reasonableness.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2015Article
- Funding decisions for newborn screening: a comparative review of 22 decision processes in Europe.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2014Review
- Fair allocation of health-care resources: finding a model that does not disenfranchise users of genetic services. A commentary on Rogowski et al....European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of genetic tests is expanding rapidly. Given limited health-care budgets throughout Europe and few national coverage decisions specifically for genetic tests, decisions about allocating scarce resources to genetic tests are frequently ad hoc and left to lower-level decision makers. This study assesses substantive ethical and economic criteria to prioritize genetic services in a reasonable and fair manner. Principles for allocating health-care resources can be classified into four categories: need-based allocation; maximizing total benefits; treating people equally; and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. In the face of scarcity, the degree of an individual's need for medical intervention is an important criterion. Also, different economic concepts of efficiency are of relevance in the theory and practice of prioritizing genetic tests. Equity concerns are most likely to be relevant in terms of avoiding undesirable inequities, which may also set boundaries to the use of efficiency as a prioritization criterion. The aim of promoting and rewarding social usefulness is unlikely to be relevant to the question of what priority a genetic test should have in clinical practice. Further work is needed to select an appropriate set of criteria; operationalize them; and assign weights before some kind of standardized priority information can be added to information sources for genetic services. Besides the substantive criteria, formal considerations like those pointed out in the framework of accountability for reasonableness need to be considered in decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.