ArticleThe patient2016
Valuing Preferences for the Process and Outcomes of Clinical Genetics Services: A Pilot Study.
Article in The patient, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the Diagnosis: Valuing Genome-Wide Sequencing for Rare Disease Diagnosis Using Contingent Valuation.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Article
- The Fold-in, Fold-out Design for DCE Choice Tasks: Application to Burden of Disease.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019Article
- Rapid Identification of Pathogenic Variants in Two Cases of Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease by Gene-Panel Sequencing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Article
- A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes.The patient · 2016Article
- Understanding Midwives' Preferences for Providing Information About Newborn Bloodspot Screening.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding preferences for the process and outcomes of clinical genetics services (CGS) is a first step to developing these services appropriately.
aimThe aim of this study was to quantify the relative importance of attributes defining the process of service delivery and the patient outcomes of CGS.
methodsAn online hybrid conjoint analysis discrete choice experiment (CA-DCE) was piloted in a purposive sample (n = 37) of CGS patients and non-patients to identify (i) service attributes (n = 13) perceived to facilitate informed decision making; (ii) relative preferences for six attributes (5 process, 1 outcome: ability to make an informed decision). A three-step approach was taken to link the data from the CA-DCE using hierarchical information integration and ordered logit and multinomial logit models. Marginal willingness-to-pay (WTP) values were calculated.
resultsServices that facilitate informed decision making, with shorter waiting times and involving pre-consultation contact were preferred. Estimated WTP values were: service location (£3170; 95% CI -391 to 15,098); waiting time (-£1080; 95% CI -3659 to -603); pre-consultation contact (£7765; 95% CI 2542-33,937); improved informed decision making (£2254; 95% CI 775-9866).
conclusionThis study suggests that hybrid stated preference experiments offer a practical solution to understanding preferences for how CGS services are delivered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26085127What 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.