The personal utility and uptake of genomic sequencing in pediatric and adult conditions: eliciting societal preferences with three discrete choice experiments

37Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate the personal utility and uptake of genomic sequencing (GS) across pediatric and adult-onset genetic conditions. Methods: Three discrete choice experiment (DCE) surveys were designed and administered to separate representative samples of the Australian public. Bayesian D-efficient explicit partial profile designs were used. Choice data were analyzed using a panel error component random parameter logit model. Results: Overall, 1913 participants completed the pediatric (n = 533), symptomatic adult (n = 700) and at-risk adult (n = 680) surveys. The willingness-to-pay for GS information in pediatric conditions was estimated at $5470–$15,250 (US$3830–$10,675) depending on the benefits of genomic information. Uptake ranged between 60% and 81%. For symptomatic adults, the value of GS was estimated at $1573–$8102 (US$1100–$5671) and uptake at 34–82%. For at-risk adults, GS was valued at $2036–$5004 (US$1425–$3503) and uptake was predicted at 35–61%. Conclusion: There is substantial personal utility in GS, particularly for pediatric conditions. Personal utility increased as the perceived benefits of genomic information increased. The clinical and regulatory context, and individuals’ sociodemographic and attitudinal characteristics influenced the value and uptake of GS. Society values highly the diagnostic, clinical, and nonclinical benefits of GS. The personal utility of GS should be considered in health-care decision-making.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Goranitis, I., Best, S., Christodoulou, J., Stark, Z., & Boughtwood, T. (2020). The personal utility and uptake of genomic sequencing in pediatric and adult conditions: eliciting societal preferences with three discrete choice experiments. Genetics in Medicine, 22(8), 1311–1319. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0809-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free