Author
Listed:
- Hadley Stevens Smith
(Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute)
- Dean A. Regier
(University of British Columbia)
- Ilias Goranitis
(University of Melbourne)
- Mackenzie Bourke
(University of Melbourne)
- Maarten J. IJzerman
(University of Melbourne
Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management)
- Koen Degeling
(University of Melbourne)
- Taylor Montgomery
(Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute)
- Kathryn A. Phillips
(UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Precision Medicine (TRANSPERS))
- Sarah Wordsworth
(University of Oxford and Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre)
- James Buchanan
(Queen Mary University of London)
- Deborah A. Marshall
(University of Calgary)
Abstract
Introduction Genomic medicine has features that make it preference sensitive and amenable to model-based health economic evaluation. Preferences of patients, caregivers, and clinicians related to the uptake and delivery of genomic medicine technologies and services that are not captured in health state utility weights can affect the intervention’s cost-effectiveness and budget impact. However, there is currently no established or agreed-on approach for integrating preference information into economic evaluations. The objective of this study was to explore approaches for incorporating preferences into model-based economic evaluations of genomic medicine and to develop a conceptual framework to consider preferences in health economic models. Methods We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis of published literature guided by the following question: how have preferences been incorporated into model-based economic evaluations of genomic medicine interventions? We integrated findings from the literature and expert opinion to develop a conceptual framework of ways in which preferences influence economic value in the context of genomic medicine. Results Our synthesis included 14 articles. Revealed and stated preference data were used to estimate choice probabilities and to value outcomes. Our conceptual framework situates preference data in the context of health system, patient, clinician, and family characteristics. Preference data were sourced from clinicians, patients and families impacted by a condition or intervention, and the general public. Evaluations employed various types of models, including discrete event simulation, microsimulation, Markov, and decision tree models. Conclusion When evaluating the broad benefits and costs of implementing new interventions, sufficiently accounting for preferences in the form of model inputs and valuation of outcomes in economic evaluations is important to avoid biased implementation decisions. Incorporation of preference data may improve alignment between predicted and real-world uptake and more accurately estimate welfare impacts, and this study provides critical insights to support researchers who seek to incorporate preference information into model-based health economic evaluations.
Suggested Citation
Hadley Stevens Smith & Dean A. Regier & Ilias Goranitis & Mackenzie Bourke & Maarten J. IJzerman & Koen Degeling & Taylor Montgomery & Kathryn A. Phillips & Sarah Wordsworth & James Buchanan & Deborah, 2025.
"Approaches to Incorporation of Preferences into Health Economic Models of Genomic Medicine: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis and Conceptual Framework,"
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 337-358, May.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00945-0
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-025-00945-0
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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_s40258-025-00945-0. 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: 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.