IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v23y2025i3d10.1007_s40258-025-00948-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond the Diagnosis: Valuing Genome-Wide Sequencing for Rare Disease Diagnosis Using Contingent Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Abbott

    (University of Aberdeen)

  • Mandy Ryan

    (University of Aberdeen)

  • Rodolfo Hernández

    (University of Aberdeen)

  • Sebastian Heidenreich

    (Evidera Inc)

  • Zosia Miedzybrodzka

    (University of Aberdeen)

Abstract

Background and Objective The utility of genome-wide sequencing is often quantified in terms of its diagnostic yield. Although obtaining a diagnosis is a fundamental aspect of value, service users also value broader clinical, informational, process and psychological factors in the provision of genomic testing. This study aims to value genome-wide sequencing from the user perspective in Scotland. Methods A survey was developed and administered to 1014 patients and families with experience of genome-wide sequencing to diagnose a rare condition in Scotland. Participants’ willingness to pay for genomic testing was elicited using a contingent valuation payment card. The survey included two genomic-related patient-reported outcome measures: (i) the Personal Utility Scale (PrU) to generate scores for the personal utility of genome-wide sequencing; and (ii) a subscale of the Feelings About Genomic Testing Results (FACTOR) questionnaire to measure negative psychological outcomes. Data were also collected on participants’ prior experiences of genomic testing services. A double-hurdle regression model investigated the predictors of patients' willingness to pay for genomic testing. Results Of the 1014 invitations sent, 171 contingent valuation questionnaires were returned. Diagnosed participants reported higher personal utility on PrU than undiagnosed participants. However, both groups reported similar negative psychological outcomes on FACTOR. Diagnosed participants were willing to pay £2043 for genome-wide sequencing, compared with £835 for undiagnosed participants. Diagnostic status, waiting time for results and FACTOR scores (negative psychological outcomes) influenced users’ valuations of genome-wide sequencing. Conclusions Obtaining a diagnosis is a fundamental component of utility in the provision of genomic testing. However, there is still value to those who do not receive a diagnosis. These results have implications for service delivery, such as providing targeted pre-test and post-test genetic counselling, and investing in efficient genome sequencing pipelines to reduce waiting times. Valuing the user experience of genomic testing aligns with patient-centred approaches to the provision of healthcare.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Abbott & Mandy Ryan & Rodolfo Hernández & Sebastian Heidenreich & Zosia Miedzybrodzka, 2025. "Beyond the Diagnosis: Valuing Genome-Wide Sequencing for Rare Disease Diagnosis Using Contingent Valuation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 425-439, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00948-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-025-00948-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-025-00948-x
    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/s40258-025-00948-x?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cam Donaldson & Ruth Thomas & David Torgerson, 1997. "Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 79-84.
    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. James Buchanan & Ilias Goranitis & Deirdre Weymann, 2025. "The Health Economics of Genomic Technologies: A Growing Evidence Base on Value," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 331-335, May.

    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. Lamiraud, Karine & von Bremen, Konrade & Donaldson, Cam, 2009. "The impact of information on patient preferences in different delivery patterns: A contingent valuation study of prescription versus OTC drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 102-110, December.
    2. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Pappa, Valentina, 2016. "Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 141-155.
    3. Wagner, Todd H. & Hu, Teh-wei & Duenas, Grace V. & Pasick, Rena J., 2000. "Willingness to pay for mammography: item development and testing among five ethnic groups," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 105-121, September.
    4. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:96-106 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Stirling Bryan & David Parry, 2002. "Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 561-567.
    7. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    9. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Mette Lundsby Jensen & Trine Kjaer, 2014. "Framing The Willingness‐To‐Pay Question: Impact On Response Patterns And Mean Willingness To Pay," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(5), pages 550-563, May.
    10. Laura J. Damschroder & Peter A. Ubel & Jason Riis & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "An alternative approach for eliciting willingness-to-pay: A randomized Internet trial," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 96-106, April.
    11. Jianhua Xu & Shiwei Fan & Jiakun Zheng, 2025. "Valuing mortality risk reductions in the time of COVID-19: A stated-preference analysis," Post-Print hal-04909840, HAL.
    12. Obinna Onwujekwe & Benjamin Uzochukwu, 2004. "Stated and actual altruistic willingness to pay for insecticide‐treated nets in Nigeria: validity of open‐ended and binary with follow‐up questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 477-492, May.
    13. Olivier Chanel & Khaled Makhloufi & Mohammad Abu-Zaineh, 2017. "Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 385-398, June.
    14. Olivier Chanel & Stéphane Luchini & Alain Paraponaris & Christel Protière & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2004. "Les consentements à payer pour des programmes de prévention sanitaire incluent-ils de l'altruisme ?. Enseignements d'une enquête sur la fièvre Q," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 55(5), pages 923-945.
    15. Wei, Xiaohan & Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Yu, Tun-Hsiang & DeLong, Karen L., 2020. "The Reference Price Effect on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Evidence from Eco-labeled Food Products," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304573, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Brouwer, Roy & Bateman, Ian J., 2005. "Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 591-611, May.
    17. Sebastian Himmler & Job Exel & Meg Perry-Duxbury & Werner Brouwer, 2020. "Willingness to pay for an early warning system for infectious diseases," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 763-773, July.
    18. Stewart, Jennifer M. & O'Shea, Eamon & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2002. "Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 585-599, July.
    19. Mataria, Awad & Donaldson, Cam & Luchini, Stephane & Moatti, Jean-Paul, 2004. "A stated preference approach to assessing health care-quality improvements in Palestine: from theoretical validity to policy implications," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1285-1311, November.
    20. Ford, George S., 2021. "Confusing relevance and price: Interpreting and improving surveys on internet non-adoption," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2).
    21. Mataria, Awad & Giacaman, Rita & Khatib, Rana & Moatti, Jean-Paul, 2006. "Impoverishment and patients' "willingness" and "ability" to pay for improving the quality of health care in Palestine: An assessment using the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 312-328, February.

    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_s40258-025-00948-x. 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.