Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2016

01-04-2016 | Original Research Article

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

Authors: Ewan Gray, Martin Eden, Caroline Vass, Marion McAllister, Jordan Louviere, Katherine Payne

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Understanding preferences for the process and outcomes of clinical genetics services (CGS) is a first step to developing these services appropriately.

Aim

The aim of this study was to quantify the relative importance of attributes defining the process of service delivery and the patient outcomes of CGS.

Methods

An online hybrid conjoint analysis discrete choice experiment (CA-DCE) was piloted in a purposive sample (n = 37) of CGS patients and non-patients to identify (i) service attributes (n = 13) perceived to facilitate informed decision making; (ii) relative preferences for six attributes (5 process, 1 outcome: ability to make an informed decision). A three-step approach was taken to link the data from the CA-DCE using hierarchical information integration and ordered logit and multinomial logit models. Marginal willingness-to-pay (WTP) values were calculated.

Results

Services that facilitate informed decision making, with shorter waiting times and involving pre-consultation contact were preferred. Estimated WTP values were: service location (£3170; 95 % CI −391 to 15,098); waiting time (−£1080; 95 % CI −3659 to −603); pre-consultation contact (£7765; 95 % CI 2542–33,937); improved informed decision making (£2254; 95 % CI 775–9866).

Conclusion

This study suggests that hybrid stated preference experiments offer a practical solution to understanding preferences for how CGS services are delivered.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Payne K, Thompson A. Economics of pharmacogenomics: rethinking beyond QALYs? Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med. 2013;11:187–95.CrossRef Payne K, Thompson A. Economics of pharmacogenomics: rethinking beyond QALYs? Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med. 2013;11:187–95.CrossRef
5.
6.
go back to reference Clarke A, Parsons E, Williams A. Outcomes and process in genetic counselling. Clin Genet. 1996;50:462–9.CrossRefPubMed Clarke A, Parsons E, Williams A. Outcomes and process in genetic counselling. Clin Genet. 1996;50:462–9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Skirton H. The client’s perspective of genetic counseling—a grounded theory study. J Genet Couns. 2001;10:311–29.CrossRefPubMed Skirton H. The client’s perspective of genetic counseling—a grounded theory study. J Genet Couns. 2001;10:311–29.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference 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.PubMed 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.PubMed
13.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74:132–57.CrossRef Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74:132–57.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Louviere J, Flynn T, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model. 2010;3:57–72.CrossRef Louviere J, Flynn T, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model. 2010;3:57–72.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77.CrossRefPubMed Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Molin E, Timmermans H. Hierarchical information integration experiments and integrated choice experiments. Transp Rev. 2009;29:635–55.CrossRef Molin E, Timmermans H. Hierarchical information integration experiments and integrated choice experiments. Transp Rev. 2009;29:635–55.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Bradley JG, Zia MJ, Hamilton N. Patient preferences for control in medical decision making: a scenario-based approach. Fam Med. 1996;28:496–501.PubMed Bradley JG, Zia MJ, Hamilton N. Patient preferences for control in medical decision making: a scenario-based approach. Fam Med. 1996;28:496–501.PubMed
23.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Street D, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. 1st ed. London: Wiley; 2007.CrossRef Street D, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. 1st ed. London: Wiley; 2007.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference White H. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica. 1980;48:817–38.CrossRef White H. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica. 1980;48:817–38.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Greene W. Econometric analysis. 7th ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 2011. Greene W. Econometric analysis. 7th ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 2011.
29.
go back to reference Oppewal H, Louviere J, Timmermans H. Modeling hierarchical conjoint processes with integrated choice experiments. J Mark Res. 1994;31:92–105.CrossRef Oppewal H, Louviere J, Timmermans H. Modeling hierarchical conjoint processes with integrated choice experiments. J Mark Res. 1994;31:92–105.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting, “irrational” responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.CrossRefPubMed Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting, “irrational” responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15:797–811.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Rungie CM, Coote LV, Louviere J. Latent variables in discrete choice experiments. J Choice Model. 2012;5:145–56.CrossRef Rungie CM, Coote LV, Louviere J. Latent variables in discrete choice experiments. J Choice Model. 2012;5:145–56.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Salisbury LC, Feinberg FM. Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in decision research: theory, measurement, and experimental test. Mark Sci. 2010;29:1–17.CrossRef Salisbury LC, Feinberg FM. Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in decision research: theory, measurement, and experimental test. Mark Sci. 2010;29:1–17.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Valuing Preferences for the Process and Outcomes of Clinical Genetics Services: A Pilot Study
Authors
Ewan Gray
Martin Eden
Caroline Vass
Marion McAllister
Jordan Louviere
Katherine Payne
Publication date
01-04-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0133-0

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2/2016 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.