IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nse/ecosta/ecostat_2021_524d_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences of the French Population Regarding Access to Genetic Information: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Peyron
  • Aurore Pélissier
  • Nicolas Krucien

Abstract

[eng] This study analyses the preferences of the French population with regard to the genetic information that is potentially accessible thanks to genomic medicine. More specifically, it is a question of knowing whether or not the French population (i) is in favour of knowing all possible results with regard to genetic predispositions; (ii) has preferences with regard to the person or the method that would decide upon the list of accessible results; (iii) is in favour of researchers having access to patients’ genetic data. This study makes use of the discrete choice method, with an online survey, conducted in France with a representative sample of 2,501 respondents. The choice data were analyzed in a mixed logit model, to explore the variability of preferences. The results show a preference for autonomy in choosing the information communicated, to access the most comprehensive genetic results possible and for a contribution to research through the provision of genetic data.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Peyron & Aurore Pélissier & Nicolas Krucien, 2021. "Preferences of the French Population Regarding Access to Genetic Information: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE), issue 524-525, pages 65-84.
    • Handle: RePEc:nse:ecosta:ecostat_2021_524d_5
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.24187/ecostat.2021.524d.2044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/fichier/5396136/05_ES524-524_Peyron_et_al_EN.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/https://doi.org/10.24187/ecostat.2021.524d.2044?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. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    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. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    3. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    4. Sagebiel, Julian & Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Spatially explicit demand for afforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 190-199.
    5. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Collins, Andrew T., 2016. "On determining priors for the generation of efficient stated choice experimental designs," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 10-14.
    6. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Mohd Mustafa, Muzafarshah & Bakar, Normizan, 2019. "Are Malaysian Consumers Willing to Pay for Hybrid Cars’ Attributes?," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 53(1), pages 121-134.
    7. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    8. Collins Asante‐Addo & Daniela Weible, 2020. "Is there hope for domestically produced poultry meat? A choice experiment of consumers in Ghana," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 281-298, April.
    9. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    10. Knoefel, Jan & Sagebiel, Julian & Yildiz, Özgür & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2018. "A consumer perspective on corporate governance in the energy transition: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 440-448.
    11. Nthambi, Mary & Wätzold, Frank & Markova-Nenova, Nonka, 2018. "Quantifying benefit losses from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya," MPRA Paper 94678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Rajo, Lindelly A. & Michelle S, Segovia & Arias, Fredi & Marco A., Palma, 2016. "Willingness-to-Pay for an Educational Label: The Zamorano University Brand," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, February.
    13. Kwabena Krah & Daniel R Petrolia & Angelica Williams & Keith H Coble & Ardian Harri & Roderick M Rejesus, 2018. "Producer Preferences for Contracts on a Risky Bioenergy Crop," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 240-258.
    14. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid & Shahhoseini, Zahra, 2015. "Accommodating taste heterogeneity and desired substitution pattern in exit choices of pedestrian crowd evacuees using a mixed nested logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 58-68.
    15. Rommel, Kai & Sagebiel, Julian, 2017. "Preferences for micro-cogeneration in Germany: Policy implications for grid expansion from a discrete choice experiment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 612-622.
    16. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: evidence from a choice experiment," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112963, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Mara Hammerle & Paul Crosby & Rohan Best, 2021. "Super‐sizing Renewable Energy Investment: Examining the Portfolio Preferences of Superannuation Fund Members," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 97(317), pages 267-284, June.
    18. Nasrin Tayyari Dehbarez & Morten Raun Mørkbak & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Niels Uldbjerg & Rikke Søgaard, 2018. "Women’s Preferences for Birthing Hospital in Denmark: A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(6), pages 613-624, December.
    19. Alba J. Collart & Matthew G. Interis, 2018. "Consumer Imperfect Information in the Market for Expired and Nearly Expired Foods and Implications for Reducing Food Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:nse:ecosta:ecostat_2021_524d_5. 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: Veronique Egloff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inseefr.html .

    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.