IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v68y2021i1p44-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Equity in genetic newborn screening

Author

Listed:
  • Hussein El Hajj
  • Douglas R. Bish
  • Ebru K. Bish

Abstract

State‐level newborn screening allows for early treatment of genetic disorders, which can substantially improve health outcomes for newborns. As the cost of genetic testing decreases, it is becoming an essential part of newborn screening. A genetic disorder can be caused by many mutation variants; therefore, an important decision is to determine which variants to search for (ie, the panel design), under a testing budget. The frequency of variants that cause a disorder and the incidence of the disorder vary by racial/ethnic group. Consequently, it is important to consider equity issues in panel design, so as to reduce disparities among different groups. We study the panel design problem using cystic fibrosis (CF) as a model disorder, considering the trade‐offs between equity and accuracy, under a limited budget. Most states use a genetic test in their CF screening protocol, but panel designs vary, and, due to cost, no state's panel includes all CF‐causing variants. We develop models that design equitable genetic testing panels, and compare them with panels that maximize sensitivity in the general population. Our case study, based on realistic CF data, highlights the value of equitable panels and provides important insight for newborn screening practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Hussein El Hajj & Douglas R. Bish & Ebru K. Bish, 2021. "Equity in genetic newborn screening," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(1), pages 44-64, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:68:y:2021:i:1:p:44-64
    DOI: 10.1002/nav.21882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.21882
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/nav.21882?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan A. Iancu & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2014. "Fairness and Efficiency in Multiportfolio Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1285-1301, December.
    2. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2011. "The Price of Fairness," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 17-31, February.
    3. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2013. "Fairness, Efficiency, and Flexibility in Organ Allocation for Kidney Transplantation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 73-87, February.
    4. Nicosia, Gaia & Pacifici, Andrea & Pferschy, Ulrich, 2017. "Price of Fairness for allocating a bounded resource," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 933-943.
    5. J. N. Hooker & H. P. Williams, 2012. "Combining Equity and Utilitarianism in a Mathematical Programming Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(9), pages 1682-1693, September.
    6. Bjorn Van Campenhout & Ben D'Exelle & Els Lecoutere, 2015. "Equity–Efficiency Optimizing Resource Allocation: The Role of Time Preferences in a Repeated Irrigation Game," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 77(2), pages 234-253, April.
    7. Mohammad R. Zolfaghari & Elnaz Peyghaleh, 2015. "Implementation of Equity in Resource Allocation for Regional Earthquake Risk Mitigation Using Two‐Stage Stochastic Programming," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 434-458, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Karsu, Özlem & Morton, Alec, 2015. "Inequity averse optimization in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(2), pages 343-359.
    2. Gur, Yonatan & Iancu, Dan & Warnes, Xavier, 2020. "Value Loss in Allocation Systems with Provider Guarantees," Research Papers 3813, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    3. Argyris, Nikolaos & Karsu, Özlem & Yavuz, Mirel, 2022. "Fair resource allocation: Using welfare-based dominance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 560-578.
    4. John P. Dickerson & Ariel D. Procaccia & Tuomas Sandholm, 2019. "Failure-Aware Kidney Exchange," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1768-1791, April.
    5. Yonatan Gur & Dan Iancu & Xavier Warnes, 2021. "Value Loss in Allocation Systems with Provider Guarantees," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3757-3784, June.
    6. Thomas Breugem & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2022. "The Price of Imposing Vertical Equity Through Asymmetric Outcome Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 7977-7993, November.
    7. Akoluk, Damla & Karsu, Özlem, 2022. "Ensuring multidimensional equality in public service," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    8. Thomas L. Magnanti & Karthik Natarajan, 2018. "Allocating Students to Multidisciplinary Capstone Projects Using Discrete Optimization," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(3), pages 204-216, June.
    9. Agnetis, Alessandro & Chen, Bo & Nicosia, Gaia & Pacifici, Andrea, 2019. "Price of fairness in two-agent single-machine scheduling problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 79-87.
    10. Feng, Yuanjun & Song, Dong-Ping & Li, Dong & Xie, Ying, 2022. "Service fairness and value of customer information for the stochastic container relocation problem under flexible service policy," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    11. Yubai Zhang & Zhao Zhang & Zhaohui Liu, 2022. "The price of fairness for a two-agent scheduling game minimizing total completion time," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 2104-2122, October.
    12. Hyunwoo Lee & Seokhyun Chung & Taesu Cheong & Sang Hwa Song, 2018. "Accounting for Fairness in a Two-Stage Stochastic Programming Model for Kidney Exchange Programs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, July.
    13. Gutjahr, Walter J., 2021. "Inequity-averse stochastic decision processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 258-270.
    14. Sun, Lishan & Lu, Huabo & Xu, Yan & Kong, Dewen & Shao, Juan, 2022. "Fairness-oriented train service design for urban rail transit cross-line operation," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 606(C).
    15. Breugem, Thomas & Van Wassenhove, Luk N., 2022. "The price of imposing vertical equity through asymmetric outcome constraints," Other publications TiSEM b6e85652-c54a-4597-a32e-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Priyank Arora & Wei Wei & Senay Solak, 2021. "Improving Outcomes in Child Care Subsidy Voucher Programs under Regional Asymmetries," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(12), pages 4435-4454, December.
    17. Chen, Qingxin & Fu, Chenyi & Zhu, Ning & Ma, Shoufeng & He, Qiao-Chu, 2023. "A target-based optimization model for bike-sharing systems: From the perspective of service efficiency and equity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 235-260.
    18. Yubai Zhang & Zhao Zhang & Zhaohui Liu, 0. "The price of fairness for a two-agent scheduling game minimizing total completion time," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-19.
    19. Yanyan Wang & Vicki M. Bier & Baiqing Sun, 2019. "Measuring and Achieving Equity in Multiperiod Emergency Material Allocation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2408-2426, November.
    20. Thomas Breugem & Twan Dollevoet & Dennis Huisman, 2022. "Is Equality Always Desirable? Analyzing the Trade-Off Between Fairness and Attractiveness in Crew Rostering," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2619-2641, April.

    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:wly:navres:v:68:y:2021:i:1:p:44-64. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6750 .

    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.