Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28212966›Full record

ArticleValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2017

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

Deborah A Marshall, Juan Marcos Gonzalez, Karen V MacDonald, F Reed Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Should Scotland provide genome-wide sequencing for the diagnosis of rare developmental disorders? A cost-effectiveness analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Deborah A MarshallDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: Damarsha@ucalgary.ca.
Juan Marcos GonzalezResearch Triangle Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Karen V MacDonaldDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
F Reed JohnsonDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Risk-Benefit Trade-Offs for Whole Genome SequencingR01HG007063 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI PHILLIPS, KATHRYN A · 2013 to 2016
$2.5M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG007063
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesResearch DesignBiomedical TechnologyChoice BehaviorGenetic TestingHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient PreferencePrecision MedicineSeverity of Illness IndexUncertaintychoice behaviordiscrete-choice experimentgenetic testingpatient acceptance of health carepatient preferencepersonalized medicine

Identifiers

PMID28212966
PMCPMC5319756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.