Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38323553›Full record

SynthesisMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2024

Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

N Morrish, T Snowsill, S Dodman, A Medina-Lara

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

N MorrishPublic Health Economics Group, Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7206-4957
T SnowsillHealth Economics Group, Health and Community Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7406-2819
S DodmanUniversity of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
A Medina-LaraPublic Health Economics Group, Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
University of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding service user preferences is key to effective health care decision making and efficient resource allocation. It is of particular importance in the management of high-risk patients in whom predictive genetic testing can alter health outcomes. PURPOSE: This review aims to identify the relative importance and willingness to pay for attributes of genetic testing in hereditary cancer syndromes. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, Web of Science, and EconLit using discrete choice experiment (DCE) terms combined with terms related to hereditary cancer syndromes, malignancy synonyms, and genetic testing. STUDY SELECTION: Following independent screening by 3 reviewers, 7 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, being a DCE investigating patient or public preferences related to predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. DATA EXTRACTION: Extracted data included study and respondent characteristics, DCE attributes and levels, methods of data analysis and interpretation, and key study findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies covered colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer syndromes. Results were summarized in a narrative synthesis and the quality assessed using the Lancsar and Louviere framework. LIMITATIONS: This review focuses only on DCE design and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes rather than other complex diseases. Challenges also arose from heterogeneity in attributes and levels.

conclusionsTest effectiveness and detection rates were consistently important to respondents and thus should be prioritized by policy makers. Accuracy, cost, and wait time, while also important, showed variation between studies, although overall reduction in cost may improve uptake. Patients and the public would be willing to pay for improved detection and clinician over insurance provider involvement. Future studies should seek to contextualize findings by considering the impact of sociodemographic characteristics, health system coverage, and insurance policies on preferences. HIGHLIGHTS: Test effectiveness and detection rates are consistently important to respondents in genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.Reducing the cost of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes may improve uptake.Individuals are most willing to pay for a test that improves detection rates, identifies multiple cancers, and for which results are shared with a doctor rather than with an insurance provider.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingPatient PreferenceChoice BehaviorFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansNeoplastic Syndromes, HereditaryRisk Assessmentdiscrete choice experimentgenetic testinghereditary cancersystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38323553
PMCPMC10988993
OpenAlexW4391592354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.