IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v23y2025i3d10.1007_s40258-024-00901-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How is Value Defined in Molecular Testing in Cancer? A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Alice Minhinnick

    (University of Auckland)

  • Francisco Santos-Gonzalez

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Michelle Wilson

    (University of Auckland)

  • Paula Lorgelly

    (University of Auckland)

Abstract

Objective To identify how value is defined in studies that focus on the value of molecular testing in cancer and the extent to which broadening the conceptualisation of value in healthcare has been applied in the molecular testing literature. Methods A scoping review was undertaken using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance. Medline, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in August 2023. Articles were eligible if they reported costs relative to outcomes, novel costs, or novel outcomes of molecular testing in cancer. Results were synthesised and qualitative content analysis was performed with deductive and inductive frameworks. Results Ninety-one articles were included in the review. The majority (75/91) were conventional economic analyses (comparative economic evaluations and budget impact assessments) and undertaken from a healthcare system perspective (38/91). Clinical outcomes dominate the assessment of value (61/91), with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) the most common outcome measure (45/91). Other definitions of value were diverse (e.g. psychological impact, access to trials), inconsistent, and largely not in keeping with evolving guidance. Conclusions Broader concepts of value were not commonly described in the molecular testing literature focusing on cancer. Conventional approaches to measuring the health costs and outcomes of molecular testing in cancer prevail with little focus on non-clinical elements of value. There are emerging reports of non-clinical outcomes of testing information, particularly psychological consequences. Intrinsic attributes of the testing process and preferences of those who receive testing information may determine the realised societal value of molecular testing and highlight challenges to implementing such a value framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Alice Minhinnick & Francisco Santos-Gonzalez & Michelle Wilson & Paula Lorgelly, 2025. "How is Value Defined in Molecular Testing in Cancer? A Scoping Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 409-424, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00901-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00901-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-024-00901-4
    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/s40258-024-00901-4?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. Joseph P. Cook & Joseph Golec, 2017. "How excluding some benefits from value assessment of new drugs impacts innovation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1813-1825, December.
    2. Joseph S. Pliskin & Donald S. Shepard & Milton C. Weinstein, 1980. "Utility Functions for Life Years and Health Status," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 206-224, February.
    3. Elizabeth J J Berm & Margot de Looff & Bob Wilffert & Cornelis Boersma & Lieven Annemans & Stefan Vegter & Job F M van Boven & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, January.
    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. F. Reed Johnson & John J. Sheehan & Semra Ozdemir & Matthew Wallace & Jui-Chen Yang, 2025. "How Much Better is Faster? Empirical Tests of QALY Assumptions in Health-Outcome Sequences," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 45-52, January.
    2. Bengt Liljas, 2011. "Welfare, QALYs, and costs – a comment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 68-72, January.
    3. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    4. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    5. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    6. Stephen G. Pauker, 2014. "Moments When Utilities Are Functional," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 4-7, January.
    7. Ryen, Linda & Svensson, Mikael, 2014. "The Willingness to Pay for a QALY: a Review of the Empirical Literature," Karlstad University Working Papers in Economics 12, Karlstad University, Department of Economics.
    8. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2023. "Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 293-305, March.
    9. Milton C. Weinstein, 1981. "Economic Assessments of Medical Practices and Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(4), pages 309-330, December.
    10. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    11. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    12. Arthur E. Attema & Marieke Krol & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2018. "New findings from the time trade-off for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 277-291, March.
    13. repec:aei:rpaper:1008589856 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Oguzhan Alagoz & Jagpreet Chhatwal & Elizabeth S. Burnside, 2013. "Optimal Policies for Reducing Unnecessary Follow-Up Mammography Exams in Breast Cancer Diagnosis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 200-224, September.
    15. Johannesson, Magnus, 1999. "On aggregating QALYs: a comment on Dolan," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 381-386, June.
    16. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2009. "The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 234-243, January.
    17. Anne Spencer, 2003. "The TTO method and procedural invariance," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 655-668, August.
    18. MORENO-TERNERO, Juan & OSTERDAL, Lars P., 2014. "Normative foundations for equity-sensitive population health evaluation functions," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014031, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    19. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Implications of Linking Questions within the SG and TTO Methods," Working Papers 438, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    20. Peter P. Wakker, 2008. "Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA) utility family," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1329-1344.
    21. Herrera-Araujo, Daniel & Hammitt, James K. & Rheinberger, Christoph M., 2020. "Theoretical bounds on the value of improved health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    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:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00901-4. 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.