Patient preferences and national health service costs: A cost-consequences analysis of cancer genetic services

Familial Cancer

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 265-275

  Griffith, Gethin L ^a   Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor ^b   Williams, J Mark G ^c   Gray, Jonathon ^d   Morrison, Val ^e   Wilkinson, Clare ^f   Turner, Jim ^f   France, Barbara ^f   Bennett, Paul ^g  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d Institute of Medical Genetics   (United Kingdom)

^e BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^f GLYNDWR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^g CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Cost consequences; Discrete choice experiment modelling; Genetic

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER GENETICS; CANCER RISK; COLORECTAL CANCER; COST CONTROL; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENETIC RISK; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH SERVICE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; OVARY CANCER; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT COUNSELING; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC SERVICES; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; PATIENT PREFERENCE;

EID: 70449529871     PISSN: 13899600     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10689-008-9217-5     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. HT Lynch WA Albano BS Danes, et al. 1984 Genetic predisposition to breast cancer Cancer 3 612 622 10.1002/1097-0142(19840201)53:3+3.0.CO;2-5 10.1002/1097-0142(19840201)53:3+<612::AID- CNCR2820531306>3.0.CO;2-5
2. SH Landis T Murray S Bolden, et al. 1999 Cancer statistics CA Cancer J Clin 49 8 31 10.3322/canjclin.49.1.8 10.3322/canjclin.49.1.8 1:STN:280:DyaK1M3hs1OrsA%3D%3D 10200775
3. S Malanders M Ridderheim A Masback, et al. 2004 One in 10 ovarian cancer patients carry germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Results of a prospective study in Southern Sweden Eur J Cancer 40 3 422 428 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.09.016 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.09.016 (Pubitemid 38121280)
4. HA Risch JR McLaughlin DEC Cole, et al. 2001 Prevalence and penetrance of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in population series of 649 women with ovarian cancer Am J Hum Genet 68 700 711 10.1086/318787 10.1086/318787 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3MXit1aksr8%3D 11179017 (Pubitemid 32203724)
5. Y Miki J Swensen D Shattuck-Eidens, et al. 1994 A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1 Science 266 66 71 10.1126/science.7545954 10.1126/science.7545954 1:CAS:528:DyaK2MXhtF2ns70%3D 7545954 (Pubitemid 24345325)
6. R Wooster G Bignell J Lancaster, et al. 1995 Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2 Nature 378 789 792 10.1038/378789a0 10.1038/378789a0 1:CAS:528:DyaK28XltFWi 8524414 (Pubitemid 26004412)
7. LA Aaltonen R Salovaara P Kristo, et al. 1989 Incidence of hereditary nonpolyposis cancer and the feasibility of molecular screening for the disease N Engl J Med 338 21 1481 1487 10.1056/NEJM199805213382101 10.1056/ NEJM199805213382101
8. C Soravia B Bapat Z Cohen 1997 Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC): a review of clinical, genetic and therapeutic aspects Schweiz Med Wochenschr 127 682 690 1:STN:280: DyaK2s3osVyqtg%3D%3D 9140167
9. GL Griffith RT Edwards J Gray 2004 Cancer genetics services: a review of the economic evidence and issues Br J Cancer 90 9 1697 1703 1:STN:280: DC%2BD2czgsFWlsg%3D%3D 15150621
10. National Institute for Health Clinical Excellence (2006) The Nice guideline (41). Familial breast cancer: the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer in primary, secondary and tertiary care. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London
11. N Torrance J Mollison S Wordsworth, et al. 2006 Genetic nurse counsellors can be an acceptable and cost-effective alternative to clinical geneticists for breast cancer risk genetic counselling. Evidence from two parallel randomised controlled equivalence trials Br J Cancer 95 4 435 444 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603248 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603248 1:STN:280:DC%2BD28votlejuw%3D%3D 16832415 (Pubitemid 44232551)
12. Wilson B, Ryan M, Haites N (1999) Assessing user preferences for, and costs of, genetic counselling for familial cancer risk in Scotland: a cost-utility analysis using conjoint analysis. Chief Scientist Office, Edinburgh
13. M Ryan E McIntosh P Shackley 1998 Using conjoint analysis to elicit the views of health service users: an application to the patient health card Health Expect 1 117 129 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1998.00024.x 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1998. 00024.x 11281866
14. Ryan M (1996) Using consumer preferences in health care decision making. The application of conjoint analysis. Office of Health Economics, London
15. D Wonderling P Hopwood A Cull, et al. 2001 A descriptive study of UK cancer genetic services: an emerging clinical response to the new genetics Br J Cancer 85 2 166 170 10.1054/bjoc.2001.1893 10.1054/bjoc.2001.1893 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvhtF2qtA%3D%3D 11461071 (Pubitemid 32695734)
16. K Brain J Gray P Norman, et al. 2000 Why do women attend familial breast cancer clinics? J Med Genet 37 1 5 10.1136/jmg.37.3.197 10.1136/jmg.37.3.197
17. Turner J, France BW, Wilcinson C et al (2002) All Wales cancer genetics service: final report November 2002. Department of General practice, University of Wales College of Medicine, Wrexham
18. Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D et al (1997) Prioritisation of clinical service developments in a teaching hospital: an application of conjoint analysis. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen
19. BR Parker V Srinivasan 1976 A consumer preference approach to the planning of rural primary health care facilities Oper Res 24 5 991 1025 10.1287/opre.24.5.991
20. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
21. Bradley M (1991) Users manual for the speed version 2.1 stated preference experiment editor and designer. Hague Consulting Group, The Hague
22. Greene WH (1998) Limdep version 7.0. Econometric software, Inc., New York
23. R Viney E Lancsar J Louviere 2002 Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preference for health and health care Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2 4 319 326 10.1586/14737167.2.4.319 10.1586/14737167.2.4.319 (Pubitemid 34893643)
24. M Bech D Gyrd-Hansen 2005 Effects coding in discrete choice experiments Health Econ 14 S1 S41 S57 10.1002/hec.984 10.1002/hec.1028 16170792 (Pubitemid 41419196)
25. GL Griffith RT Edwards J Gray, et al. 2005 A micro costing of NHS cancer genetic services Br J Cancer 92 1 60 71 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602270 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602270 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2M%2Fnt1Snuw%3D%3D 15583691 (Pubitemid 40188437)
26. Office for National Statistics (2003) Census 2001. Office for National Statistics. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2002/profiles/printv/w-A.asp
27. Rose D, O'Reilly K (1998) The ESRC review of government social classifications. Office for National Statistics & Economic and Social Research Council, London & Swindon
28. F San Miguel M Ryan M Amaya-Amaya 2005 Irrational stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation Health Econ 14 307 322 10.1002/hec.912 10.1002/hec.912 (Pubitemid 40360765)
29. CG Verhoef A Maas LJA Stalpers, et al. 1991 The feasibility of additive conjoint measurement in measuring utilities in breast cancer patients Health Policy 17 39 50 10.1016/0168-8510(91)90116-F 10.1016/0168-8510(91)90116-F
30. K Hanson B McPake P Nakamba, et al. 2005 Preference for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment Health Econ 14 687 701 10.1002/hec.959 10.1002/hec.959 15619273 (Pubitemid 40960225)
31. E McIntosh M Ryan 2002 Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: implications of discontinuous preferences J Econ Psychol 23 367 382 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00081- 8 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00081-8
32. J Ratcliffe M Buxton 1999 Patient preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology Int J Technol Assess Health Care 15 2 340 351 1:STN:280:DyaK1MvjslSqsw%3D%3D 10507193
33. J Hall P Kenny M King, et al. 2002 Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination Health Econ 11 457 465 10.1002/hec.694 10.1002/hec.694 12112494 (Pubitemid 34752616)
34. E Lancsar E Savage 2004 Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: a response to Ryan and Santos Silva Health Econ 13 919 924 10.1002/hec.885 10.1002/hec.885 (Pubitemid 39264239)
35. S Bryan M Buxton R Sheldon, et al. 1998 Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: a discrete choice conjoint analysis exercise Health Econ 7 595 603 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(1998110)7:7<595::AID- HEC381>3.0.CO;2-E 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(1998110)7:7<595::AID- HEC381>3.0.CO;2-E 1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FlvFertA%3D%3D 9845253 (Pubitemid 28521898)
36. S Bryan P Dolan 2004 Discrete choice experiments in health economics Eur J Health Econ 5 199 202 10.1007/s10198-004-0241-6 10.1007/s10198-004-0241-6 15452734 (Pubitemid 39382517)
37. A Scott 2001 Eliciting GPs' preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics J Health Econ 20 329 347 10.1016/S0167-6296(00)00083-7 10.1016/S0167-6296(00)00083-7 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3ptFGntg%3D%3D 11373834 (Pubitemid 32331836)
38. M Steel E Smyth H Vasen, et al. 1999 Ethical, social and economic issues in familial breast cancer: a compilation of views from the E.C. Biomed II demonstration project Dis Markers 15 1-3 125 131 1:STN:280: DC%2BD3c%2FmtFKnsg%3D%3D 10595265
39. Harper PS, Clarke AJ (1997) Genetics and society in clinical practice. Bios Scientific publishers, Oxford
40. Advisory Committee on Genetics Testing (1998) Genetic testing for late onset disorders (Harper report). Health Department of the United Kingdom, London
41. Genetics Research Advisory Group (1995) A second report to the NHS Central Research and Development Committee on the new genetics. Department of Health, HMSO, London
42. Royal College of Physicians (1991) Clinical genetic services in 1990 and beyond. Royal College of Physicians, London
43. Griffith GL (2008) Patient preferences in the delivery of cancer genetic services. Bangor University, Bangor
44. KB Monroe 1971 Psychophysics of price: a reappraisal J Mark Res 8 248 251 10.2307/3149772 10.2307/3149772
45. R Dawes B Corrigan 1974 Linear models in decision making Psychol Bull 81 95 106 10.1037/h0037613 10.1037/h0037613
46. A Clarke E Parsons A Williams 1996 Outcome and process in genetic counselling Clin Genet 50 462 469 1:STN:280:DyaK2s3gsFyisA%3D%3D 9147874
47. V Hundley M Ryan 2004 Are women's expectations and preferences for intrapartum care affected by the model of care on offer? BJOG 111 550 560 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00152.x 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00152.x 15198782 (Pubitemid 38746238)