IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i1d10.1007_s40271-021-00531-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing

Author

Listed:
  • Semra Ozdemir

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • Jia Jia Lee

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • Isha Chaudhry

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • Remee Rose Quintana Ocampo

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

Abstract

Background Although genetic testing has the potential to offer promising medical benefits, concerns regarding its potential negative impacts may influence its acceptance. Users and providers need to weigh the benefits, costs and potential harms before deciding whether to take up or recommend genetic testing. Attribute-based stated-preference methods, such as discrete choice experiment (DCE) or conjoint analysis, can help to quantify how individuals value different features of genetic testing. Objectives The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of DCE and conjoint analysis studies on genetic testing, including genomic tests. Methods A systematic search was conducted in seven databases: Web of Science, CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCO), PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library and SCOPUS. The search was conducted in February 2021 and was limited to English peer-reviewed articles published until the search date. The search keywords included relevant keywords such as ‘genetic testing’, ‘genomic testing’, ‘pharmacogenetic testing’, ‘discrete choice experiment’ and ‘conjoint analysis’. Narrative synthesis of the studies was conducted on survey population, testing type, recruitment and data collection, survey development, questionnaire content, survey validity, analysis, outcomes and other design features. Results Of the 292 articles retrieved, 38 full-text articles were included in this review. Nearly two-thirds of the studies were published since 2015 and all were conducted in high-income countries. Survey samples included patients, parents, general population and healthcare providers. The articles assessed preferences for pharmacogenetic testing (28.9%), predictive testing and diagnostic testing (18.4%), while only one (2.6%) study investigated preferences for carrier testing. The most common sampling method was convenience sampling (57.9%) and the majority recruited participants via web-enabled surveys (60.5%). Review of literature (84.6%), discussions with healthcare professionals (71.8%) and cognitive interviews (53.8%) were commonly used for attribute identification. A survey validity test was included in only one-quarter of the studies (28.2%). Cost attributes were the most studied attribute type (76.9%), followed by risk attributes (61.5%). Among those that reported relative attribute importance, attributes related to benefits were the most commonly reported attributes with the highest relative attribute importance. Preference heterogeneity was investigated in most studies by modelling, such as via mixed logit analysis (82.1%) and/or by using interaction effects with respondent characteristics (74.4%). Willingness to pay was the most commonly estimated outcome and was presented in about two-thirds (n = 25; 64.1%) of the studies. Conclusion With the continuous advancement in genetic technology resulting in expanding options for genetic testing and improvements in delivery methods, the application of genetic testing in clinical care is expected to rise. DCEs and conjoint analysis remain robust and useful methods to elicit preferences of potential stakeholders. This review serves as a summary for future researchers when designing similar studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Semra Ozdemir & Jia Jia Lee & Isha Chaudhry & Remee Rose Quintana Ocampo, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(1), pages 39-54, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00531-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00531-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00531-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-021-00531-1?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ilene L. Hollin & Benjamin M. Craig & Joanna Coast & Kathleen Beusterien & Caroline Vass & Rachael DiSantostefano & Holly Peay, 2020. "Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 121-136, February.
    2. Semra Ozdemir & Marcel Bilger & Eric A. Finkelstein, 2017. "Stated Uptake of Physical Activity Rewards Programmes Among Active and Insufficiently Active Full-Time Employees," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 647-656, October.
    3. James Buchanan & Sarah Wordsworth & Anna Schuh, 2016. "Patients’ Preferences for Genomic Diagnostic Testing in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(6), pages 525-536, December.
    4. Sara J. Knight & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Deborah A. Marshall & Uri Ladabaum & Kathryn A. Phillips & Judith M. E. Walsh, 2015. "Value of Genetic Testing for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer in a Probability-Based US Online Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 734-744, August.
    5. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    6. Severin, Franziska & Hess, Wolfgang & Schmidtke, Jörg & Mühlbacher, Axel & Rogowski, Wolf, 2015. "Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 164-173.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ilir Hoxha & Bajram Duraj & Shefki Xharra & Afrim Avdaj & Valon Beqiri & Krenare Grezda & Erza Selmani & Blerta Avdiu & Jakob Cegllar & Dorjan Marušič & Aferdita Osmani, 2022. "Clinical Decision-Making for Appendectomy in Kosovo: A Conjoint Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-8, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peyron, Christine & Pélissier, Aurore & Béjean, Sophie, 2018. "Preference heterogeneity with respect to whole genome sequencing. A discrete choice experiment among parents of children with rare genetic diseases," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 125-132.
    2. 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.
    3. Magda Aguiar & Mark Harrison & Sarah Munro & Tiasha Burch & K. Julia Kaal & Marie Hudson & Nick Bansback & Tracey-Lea Laba, 2021. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments Using a Patient-Oriented Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 389-397, July.
    4. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    5. Jennifer A Whitty & Simon Stewart & Melinda J Carrington & Alicia Calderone & Thomas Marwick & John D Horowitz & Henry Krum & Patricia M Davidson & Peter S Macdonald & Christopher Reid & Paul A Scuffh, 2013. "Patient Preferences and Willingness-To-Pay for a Home or Clinic Based Program of Chronic Heart Failure Management: Findings from the Which? Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    6. Xiaoling Ge & Huanhuan Tong & Yongxia Song & Hongye He & Shuwen Li & Jingfang Hong & Wenru Wang, 2020. "The caring experience and supportive care needs of male partners for women with gynaecologic cancer: A qualitative literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(23-24), pages 4469-4481, December.
    7. Rogowski, Wolf H. & Schleidgen, Sebastian, 2015. "Using needs-based frameworks for evaluating new technologies: An application to genetic tests," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 147-155.
    8. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    9. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    10. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    11. Heagney, E.C. & Rose, J.M. & Ardeshiri, A. & Kovac, M., 2019. "The economic value of tourism and recreation across a large protected area network," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    12. Merle Gijsbers & Iris Elise Keizer & Stephanie Else Schouten & Janneke Louise Trompert & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Janine Astrid Til, 2021. "Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 331-338, May.
    13. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    14. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    15. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    16. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    17. Narjes, Manuel Ernesto & Lippert, Christian, 2016. "Longan fruit farmers' demand for policies aimed at conserving native pollinating bees in Northern Thailand," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 58-67.
    18. Richard Norman & Gisselle Gallego, 2008. "Equity weights for economic evaluation: An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment, CHERE Working Paper 2008/5," Working Papers 2008/5, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    19. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni, 2008. "Eliciting the demand for long‐term care coverage: a discrete choice modelling analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 411-433, March.
    20. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00531-1. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.