IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i3p252-268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • N. Morrish

    (Public Health Economics Group, Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK)

  • T. Snowsill

    (Health Economics Group, Health and Community Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK)

  • S. Dodman

    (University of Exeter, Exeter, UK)

  • A. Medina-Lara

    (Public Health Economics Group, Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK)

Abstract

Background Understanding 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. Conclusions Test 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.

Suggested Citation

  • N. Morrish & T. Snowsill & S. Dodman & A. Medina-Lara, 2024. "Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(3), pages 252-268, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:3:p:252-268
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241227425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241227425
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241227425?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:3:p:252-268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.