ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2018
Effect of co-payment on behavioral response to consumer genomic testing.
Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic health data generation in the UK: a 360 view.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Introduction to the Special Issue on Clinical and Public Health Genomics: Opportunities for translational behavioral medicine research, practice, and policy.Translational behavioral medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Existing research in consumer behavior suggests that perceptions and usage of a product post-purchase depends, in part, on how the product was marketed, including price paid. In the current study, we examine the effect of providing an out-of-pocket co-payment for consumer genomic testing (CGT) on consumer post-purchase behavior using both correlational field evidence and a hypothetical online experiment. Participants were enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study of the impact of CGT and completed behavioral assessments before and after receipt of CGT results. Most participants provided a co-payment for the test (N = 1668), while others (N = 369) received fully subsidized testing. The two groups were compared regarding changes in health behaviors and post-test use of health care resources. Participants who paid were more likely to share results with their physician (p = .012) and obtain follow-up health screenings (p = .005) relative to those who received fully subsidized testing. A follow-up online experiment in which participants (N = 303) were randomized to a "fully-subsidized" versus "co-payment" condition found that simulating provision of a co-payment significantly increased intentions to seek follow-up screening tests (p = .050) and perceptions of the test results as more trustworthy (p = .02). Provision of an out-of-pocket co-payment for CGT may influence consumer's post-purchase behavior consistent with a price placebo effect. Cognitive dissonance or sunk cost may help explain the increase in screening propensity among paying consumers. Such individuals may obtain follow-up screenings to validate their initial decision to expend personal resources to obtain CGT.
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.