Valuing Preferences for the Process and Outcomes of Clinical Genetics Services: A Pilot Study

Patient

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 135-147

  Gray, Ewan ^a   Eden, Martin ^a   Vass, Caroline ^a   McAllister, Marion ^b   Louviere, Jordan ^c   Payne, Katherine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL GENETICS; CONJOINT ANALYSIS; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FOLLOW UP; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC RISK; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC SERVICE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MOLECULAR DIAGNOSIS; ONLINE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PILOT STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PURPOSIVE SAMPLE; TURNAROUND TIME; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; INTERNET; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED KINGDOM;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; GENETIC SERVICES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERNET; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT PREFERENCE; PILOT PROJECTS; STATE MEDICINE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84961211326     PISSN: 11781653     EISSN: 11781661     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40271-015-0133-0     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. McKusick V. History of medical genetics. In: Rimonin DL, Connor JM, Pyeritz RE, Korf B, editors. Emery and Rimonin’s princeples and pracice of medical genetics. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2002. p. 3–36.
2. Resta R, Biesecker BB, Bennett RL, Blum S, Hahn SE, Strecker MN, et al. A new definition of genetic counseling: national society of genetic counselors’ task force report. J Genet Couns. 2006;15:77–83.
3. Clarke AJ. Outcomes and process in genetic counselling. In: Harper PS, Clarke AJ, editors. Genetics, society and clinical pracice. Oxford: Bios scientific publishers; 1997. p. 165–78.
4. Payne K, Thompson A. Economics of pharmacogenomics: rethinking beyond QALYs? Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med. 2013;11:187–95.
5. Kessler S, Bloch M. Social system responses to Huntington disease. Fam Process. 1989;28:59–68.
6. Clarke A, Parsons E, Williams A. Outcomes and process in genetic counselling. Clin Genet. 1996;50:462–9.
7. Bernhardt B, Biesecker BB, Mastromarino CL. Goals, benefits, and outcomes of genetic counseling: client and genetic counselor assessment. Am J Med Genet. 2000;94:189–97.
8. Skirton H. The client’s perspective of genetic counseling—a grounded theory study. J Genet Couns. 2001;10:311–29.
9. McAllister M, Payne K, Macleod R, Nicholls S, Donnai D, Davies L. What process attributes of clinical genetics services could maximise patient benefits? Eur J Hum Genet. 2008;16:1467–76.
10. McAllister M, Payne K, Macleod R, Nicholls S, Donnai D, Davies L. Patient empowerment in clinical genetics services. J Health Psychol. 2008;13:895–905.
11. McAllister M, Wood AM, Dunn G, Shiloh S, Todd C. The genetic counseling outcome scale: a new patient-reported outcome measure for clinical genetics services. Clin Genet. 2011;79:413–24.
12. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2:55–64.
13. Hall J, Fiebig D, King M, Hossain I, Louviere J. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Econ. 2006;25:520–37.
14. Peacock S, Apicella C, Andrews L, Tucker K, Bankier A, Daly MB, et al. A discrete choice experiment of preferences for genetic counselling among Jewish women seeking cancer genetics services. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:1448–53.
15. Regier DA, Friedman JM, Makela N, Ryan M, Marra CA. Valuing the benefit of diagnostic testing for genetic causes of idiopathic developmental disability: willingness to pay from families of affected children. Clin Genet. 2009;75:514–21.
16. Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74:132–57.
17. Louviere J, Flynn T, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model. 2010;3:57–72.
18. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77.
19. Van Helvoort-Postulart D, Dellaert B, van der Weijden T, von Meyenfeldt MF, Dirksen CD. Discrete choice experiments for complex health-care decisions: does hierarchical information integration offer a solution? Health Econ. 2009;18:903–20.
20. Oppewal H, Klabbers M. Compromising between information completeness and task simplicity: a comparison of self-explicated, hierarchical information integration, and full-profile conjoint methods. Adv Consum Res. 2003;30:298–304.
21. Molin E, Timmermans H. Hierarchical information integration experiments and integrated choice experiments. Transp Rev. 2009;29:635–55.
22. Bradley JG, Zia MJ, Hamilton N. Patient preferences for control in medical decision making: a scenario-based approach. Fam Med. 1996;28:496–501.
23. Entwistle VA, Skea ZC, O’Donnell MT. Decisions about treatment: interpretations of two measures of control by women having a hysterectomy. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53:721–32.
24. Street D, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. 1st ed. London: Wiley; 2007.
25. Street D, Burgess L. Discrete Choice Experiments [computer software]. Sydney: School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology. 2007. http://crsu.science.uts.edu.au/choice.
26. White H. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica. 1980;48:817–38.
27. Huber P. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, vol 1. 1967. p. 221–33.
28. Greene W. Econometric analysis. 7th ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 2011.
29. Oppewal H, Louviere J, Timmermans H. Modeling hierarchical conjoint processes with integrated choice experiments. J Mark Res. 1994;31:92–105.
30. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting, “irrational” responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.
31. Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the “irrational”: a think aloud study of a discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 2009;336:321–36.
32. Rungie CM, Coote LV, Louviere J. Latent variables in discrete choice experiments. J Choice Model. 2012;5:145–56.
33. Holloway S, Porteous M, Cetnarskyj R, Anderson E, Rush R, Fry A, et al. Patient satisfaction with two different models of cancer genetic services in south-east Scotland. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:582–9.
34. Helmes A, Bowen D, Bengel J. Patient preferences of decision-making in the context of genetic testing for breast cancer risk. Genet Med. 2002;4:150–7.
35. Stalmeier P, Unic I, Verhoef L, Van Daal W. Evaluation of a shared decision making program for women suspected to have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer preliminary results. Med Decis Mak. 1999;19:230–41.
36. McCarthy Veach P, Bartels DM, Leroy BS. Coming full circle: a reciprocal-engagement model of genetic counseling practice. J Genet Couns. 2007;16:713–28.
37. Salisbury LC, Feinberg FM. Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in decision research: theory, measurement, and experimental test. Mark Sci. 2010;29:1–17.
38. Fiebig D, Keane M, Louviere J, Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci. 2010;29:393–421.