ArticleBMC health services research2013
Genomic testing to determine drug response: measuring preferences of the public and patients using Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE).
Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare professionals' and consumers' knowledge, attitudes, perspectives, and education needs in oncology pharmacogenomics: A systematic review.Clinical and translational science · 2023Pooled it
- Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2017Pooled it
- Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Trial
- Value of Knowing the Risk of Developing a Neurodegenerative Disease: A Discrete Choice Experiment.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Preferences for Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Care for Children: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2024Article
- Readiness to Accept Genetic Testing for Personalized Medicine: Survey Findings on the Role of Socio-Demographic Characteristics, Health Vulnerabilities, Perceived Genetic Risk and Personality Factors.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Preferences for pharmacogenomic testing in polypharmacy patients: a discrete choice experiment.Personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Allocating healthcare resources to genomic testing in Canada: latest evidence and current challenges.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Towards Personalising the Use of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2022Article
- Payer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Genomic Precision Medicine: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Article
- Demand for Precision Medicine: A Discrete-Choice Experiment and External Validation Study.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Article
- Do health professionals value genomic testing? A discrete choice experiment in inherited cardiovascular disease.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Pharmacogenomic Testing In Pediatrics: Navigating The Ethical, Social, And Legal Challenges.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2019Article
- Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare Discrete Choice Experiments: A Primer.The patient · 2018Article
- The price of whole-genome sequencing may be decreasing, but who will be sequenced?Personalized medicine · 2017Article
- Patients' Preferences for Genomic Diagnostic Testing in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe extent to which a genomic test will be used in practice is affected by factors such as ability of the test to correctly predict response to treatment (i.e. sensitivity and specificity of the test), invasiveness of the testing procedure, test cost, and the probability and severity of side effects associated with treatment.
methodsUsing discrete choice experimentation (DCE), we elicited preferences of the public (Sample 1, N = 533 and Sample 2, N = 525) and cancer patients (Sample 3, N = 38) for different attributes of a hypothetical genomic test for guiding cancer treatment. Samples 1 and 3 considered the test/treatment in the context of an aggressive curable cancer (scenario A) while the scenario for sample 2 was based on a non-aggressive incurable cancer (scenario B).
resultsIn aggressive curable cancer (scenario A), everything else being equal, the odds ratio (OR) of choosing a test with 95% sensitivity was 1.41 (versus a test with 50% sensitivity) and willingness to pay (WTP) was $1331, on average, for this amount of improvement in test sensitivity. In this scenario, the OR of choosing a test with 95% specificity was 1.24 times that of a test with 50% specificity (WTP = $827). In non-aggressive incurable cancer (scenario B), the OR of choosing a test with 95% sensitivity was 1.65 (WTP = $1344), and the OR of choosing a test with 95% specificity was 1.50 (WTP = $1080). Reducing severity of treatment side effects from severe to mild was associated with large ORs in both scenarios (OR = 2.10 and 2.24 in scenario A and B, respectively). In contrast, patients had a very large preference for 95% sensitivity of the test (OR = 5.23).
conclusionThe type and prognosis of cancer affected preferences for genomically-guided treatment. In aggressive curable cancer, individuals emphasized more on the sensitivity rather than the specificity of the test. In contrast, for a non-aggressive incurable cancer, individuals put similar emphasis on sensitivity and specificity of the test. While the public expressed strong preference toward lowering severity of side effects, improving sensitivity of the test had by far the largest influence on patients' decision to use genomic testing.
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.