Dataset Information

Genomic testing to determine drug response: measuring preferences of the public and patients using Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE).

ABSTRACT:

Background

The extent to which a genomic test will be used in practice is affected by factors such as ability of the test to correctly predict response to treatment (i.e. sensitivity and specificity of the test), invasiveness of the testing procedure, test cost, and the probability and severity of side effects associated with treatment.

Methods

Using discrete choice experimentation (DCE), we elicited preferences of the public (Sample 1, N = 533 and Sample 2, N = 525) and cancer patients (Sample 3, N = 38) for different attributes of a hypothetical genomic test for guiding cancer treatment. Samples 1 and 3 considered the test/treatment in the context of an aggressive curable cancer (scenario A) while the scenario for sample 2 was based on a non-aggressive incurable cancer (scenario B).

Results

In aggressive curable cancer (scenario A), everything else being equal, the odds ratio (OR) of choosing a test with 95% sensitivity was 1.41 (versus a test with 50% sensitivity) and willingness to pay (WTP) was $1331, on average, for this amount of improvement in test sensitivity. In this scenario, the OR of choosing a test with 95% specificity was 1.24 times that of a test with 50% specificity (WTP = $827). In non-aggressive incurable cancer (scenario B), the OR of choosing a test with 95% sensitivity was 1.65 (WTP = $1344), and the OR of choosing a test with 95% specificity was 1.50 (WTP = $1080). Reducing severity of treatment side effects from severe to mild was associated with large ORs in both scenarios (OR = 2.10 and 2.24 in scenario A and B, respectively). In contrast, patients had a very large preference for 95% sensitivity of the test (OR = 5.23).

Conclusion

The type and prognosis of cancer affected preferences for genomically-guided treatment. In aggressive curable cancer, individuals emphasized more on the sensitivity rather than the specificity of the test. In contrast, for a non-aggressive incurable cancer, individuals put similar emphasis on sensitivity and specificity of the test. While the public expressed strong preference toward lowering severity of side effects, improving sensitivity of the test had by far the largest influence on patients' decision to use genomic testing.

SUBMITTER: Najafzadeh M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3827922 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital technological development in the last 20 years has led to significant growth in digital collection, use, and sharing of health data. To maintain public trust in the digital society and to enable acceptable policy-making in the future, it is important to investigate people's preferences for sharing digital health data.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to elicit the preferences of the public in different Northern European countries (the United Kingdom, Norway, Iceland, and Sweden) for sharing health information in different contexts.MethodsRespondents in this discrete choice experiment completed several choice tasks, in which they were asked if data sharing in the described hypothetical situation was acceptable to them. Latent class logistic regression models were used to determine attribute-level estimates and heterogeneity in preferences. We calculated the relative importance of the attributes and the predicted acceptability for different contexts in which the data were shared from the estimates.ResultsIn the final analysis, we used 37.83% (1967/5199) questionnaires. All attributes influenced the respondents' willingness to share health information (P<.001). The most important attribute was whether the respondents were informed about their data being shared. The possibility of opting out from sharing data was preferred over the opportunity to consent (opt-in). Four classes were identified in the latent class model, and the average probabilities of belonging were 27% for class 1, 32% for class 2, 23% for class 3, and 18% for class 4. The uptake probability varied between 14% and 85%, depending on the least to most preferred combination of levels.ConclusionsRespondents from different countries have different preferences for sharing their health data regarding the value of a review process and the reason for their new use. Offering respondents information about the use of their data and the possibility to opt out is the most preferred governance mechanism.

Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to develop and test a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey to elicit adolescent and parent preferences for dental care for hypodontia (a developmental condition where one or more teeth fail to develop).MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study. Participants were adolescents (aged 12-16 years) with hypodontia and their parents and the dentists providing hypodontia care. Stage one entailed attribute development, as follows. (1) Attribute identification: systematic review of hypodontia literature; interviews with adolescents with hypodontia (n = 8) and parents (n = 8); observation of hypodontia clinical consultations (n = 5); environmental scan of hypodontia patient information resources (n = 30); and systematic analysis of social media posts (n = 176). (2) Attribute selection: stakeholder consultation to develop items for a questionnaire; rating and ranking questionnaire for adolescents with hypodontia and parents (n = 18); further stakeholder consultation. Stage two involved the development of the DCE survey, and stage three included the pre-testing using cognitive interviews with adolescents (n = 12) and parents (n = 8) to assess face and content validity.ResultsThe attribute long list included 27 attributes focusing on service delivery and treatment outcome, from which seven 'important' attributes were selected for pre-testing. Cognitive interviewing suggested adolescents found the DCE choice tasks challenging to understand; the survey was modified to enhance its acceptability. One attribute was excluded as it showed poor validity with adolescents. Pre-testing suggested DCE choice tasks encouraged thinking and discussion about preferences for treatment.ConclusionsIncluding the target respondent group in all stages of DCE development ensured the final DCE survey was valid and acceptable. DCE methods appear to be a useful tool for exploring joint decision making alongside conventional preference elicitation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Providers often prescribe counseling and/or medications for tobacco cessation without considering patients' treatment preferences. OBJECTIVE:The primary aims of this study are to describe (1) the development of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire designed to identify the attributes and levels of tobacco treatment that are most important to veterans; and (2) the decision-making process in choosing between hypothetical tobacco treatments. METHODS:We recruited current smokers who were already scheduled for a primary care appointment within a single Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. Subjects were asked to rate the importance of selected treatment attributes and were interviewed during two rounds of pilot testing of initial DCE instruments. Key attributes and levels of the initial instruments were identified by targeted literature review; the instruments were iteratively revised after each round of pilot testing. Using a 'think aloud' approach, subjects were interviewed while completing DCE choice tasks. Constant comparison techniques were used to characterize the issues raised by subjects. Findings from the cognitive interviews were used to revise the initial DCE instruments. RESULTS:Most subjects completed the DCE questionnaire without difficulty and considered two or more attributes in choosing between treatments. Two common patterns of decision-making emerged during the cognitive interviews: (1) counting 'pros' and 'cons' of each treatment alternative; and (2) using a 'rule-out' strategy to eliminate a given treatment choice if it included an undesirable attribute. Subjects routinely discounted the importance of certain attributes and, in a few cases, focused primarily on a single 'must-have' attribute. CONCLUSION:Cognitive interviews provide valuable insights into the comprehension and interpretation of DCE attributes, the decision processes used by veterans during completion of choice tasks, and underlying reasons for non'-compensatory decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundDeciding on pharmaceutical subsidy is regarded as a challenging issue for healthcare policymakers in Iran in most times. Public preferences, rarely attended in Iran, could be invaluable for including a particular drug in the list of subsidized medications.ObjectivesThe current study aims to elicit the public preferences to develop an evidence-based decision-making framework for entering a drug into the list of subsidies in Iran.MethodsDiscrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was employed to elicit the public preferences. Around 34 attributes were identified based on the systematic review and interview with 51 experts. By holding an expert panel, 7 attributes were finalized, namely: the survival after treatment, quality of life after treatment (QoL), alternative treatment, age group of the target population, cost burden for the government, disease severity, and drug manufacturer country. Next, 1224 households were selected for the survey in the city of Tehran, using random cluster sampling. Data were analyzed using conditional logit model.ResultsThe survival after treatment (β = 1.245; SE = 0.053) and disease severity (β =- 0.143; SE = 0.043) had the highest and lowest priority, respectively, in the preferences for allocating subsidy to a drug. In developed region, unlike the other two regions, the level of domestic drug production (β =- 0.302; SE = 0.073) was inversely associated with preferences toward allocating subsidy to a drug. In contrast to other districts, those living in district number one (β = 2.053; SE = 0.138) gave the highest value to promoting the QoL after treatment.ConclusionsIt is suggested that policymakers pay more attention to attributes such as effectiveness and alternative treatment when developing an evidence-based framework for entering a drug into the list of subsidies. This study highlighted the public belief in the government's subsidy for medicines, provided that, this results in an increased survival and QoL.