Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value-development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT)

被引:66
作者
Bennette, Caroline Savage [1 ]
Trinidad, Susan Brown [2 ]
Fullerton, Stephanie M. [2 ]
Patrick, Donald [3 ]
Amendola, Laura [4 ]
Burke, Wylie [2 ]
Hisama, Fuki M. [4 ]
Jarvik, Gail P. [4 ]
Regier, Dean A. [5 ]
Veenstra, David L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Dept Pharm, Pharmaceut Outcomes Res & Policy Program, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Dept Bioeth & Humanities, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[3] Univ Washington, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Serv, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[4] Univ Washington, Div Med Genet, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[5] British Columbia Canc Agcy, Canadian Ctr Appl Res Canc Control, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E6, Canada
关键词
discrete-choice experiment; incidental findings; patient preferences; whole-genome sequencing; CARE PROFESSIONALS PREFERENCES; CONJOINT-ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS; HEALTH-CARE; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; SCREENING-TESTS; GENETIC CAUSES; DOWN-SYNDROME; PERSPECTIVES; UTILITY; WILLINGNESS;
D O I
10.1038/gim.2013.63
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Purpose: Little is known about the factors that influence patients' preferences for the return of incidental findings from genome sequencing. This study identified attributes of incidental findings that were important to patients and developed a discrete-choice experiment instrument to quantify patient preferences. Methods: An initial set of key attributes and attribute levels was developed from a literature review and in consultation with experts. The attributes' salience and communication were refined using focus group methodology (n = 12) and cognitive interviews (n = 6) with patients who had received conventional genetic testing for familial colorectal cancer or polyposis syndromes. The attributes and levels used in the hypothetical choices presented to participants were identified using validated experimental design techniques. Results: The final discrete-choice experiment instrument incorporates the following attributes and levels: lifetime risk of disease (5, 40, 70%); disease treatability (medical, lifestyle, none); disease severity (mild, moderate, severe); carrier status (yes, no); drug response likelihood (high, moderate, none); and test cost ($250, $425, $1,000, $1,900). Conclusion: Patient preferences for incidental genomic findings are likely influenced by a complex set of diverse attributes. Quantification of patient preferences can inform patient provider communication by highlighting the attributes of incidental findings that matter most to patients and warrant further discussion.
引用
收藏
页码:873 / 881
页数:9
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   Clinical assessment incorporating a personal genome [J].
Ashley, Euan A. ;
Butte, Atul J. ;
Wheeler, Matthew T. ;
Chen, Rong ;
Klein, Teri E. ;
Dewey, Frederick E. ;
Dudley, Joel T. ;
Ormond, Kelly E. ;
Pavlovic, Aleksandra ;
Morgan, Alexander A. ;
Pushkarev, Dmitry ;
Neff, Norma F. ;
Hudgins, Louanne ;
Gong, Li ;
Hodges, Laura M. ;
Berlin, Dorit S. ;
Thorn, Caroline F. ;
Sangkuhl, Katrin ;
Hebert, Joan M. ;
Woon, Mark ;
Sagreiya, Hersh ;
Whaley, Ryan ;
Knowles, Joshua W. ;
Chou, Michael F. ;
Thakuria, Joseph V. ;
Rosenbaum, Abraham M. ;
Zaranek, Alexander Wait ;
Church, George M. ;
Greely, Henry T. ;
Quake, Stephen R. ;
Altman, Russ B. .
LANCET, 2010, 375 (9725) :1525-1535
[2]   Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: Meeting the challenge one bin at a time [J].
Berg, Jonathan S. ;
Khoury, Muin J. ;
Evans, James P. .
GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2011, 13 (06) :499-504
[3]   WHAT DO PATIENTS VALUE - WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ULTRASOUND IN NORMAL-PREGNANCY [J].
BERWICK, DM ;
WEINSTEIN, MC .
MEDICAL CARE, 1985, 23 (07) :881-893
[4]   The ClinSeq Project: Piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine [J].
Biesecker, Leslie G. ;
Mullikin, James C. ;
Facio, Flavia M. ;
Turner, Clesson ;
Cherukuri, Praveen F. ;
Blakesley, Robert W. ;
Bouffard, Gerard G. ;
Chines, Peter S. ;
Cruz, Pedro ;
Hansen, Nancy F. ;
Teer, Jamie K. ;
Maskeri, Baishali ;
Young, Alice C. ;
Manolio, Teri A. ;
Wilson, Alexander F. ;
Finkel, Toren ;
Hwang, Paul ;
Arai, Andrew ;
Remaley, Alan T. ;
Sachdev, Vandana ;
Shamburek, Robert ;
Cannon, Richard O. ;
Green, Eric D. .
GENOME RESEARCH, 2009, 19 (09) :1665-1674
[5]   Women and health care professionals' preferences for Down's Syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study [J].
Bishop, AJ ;
Marteau, TM ;
Armstrong, D ;
Chitty, LS ;
Longworth, L ;
Buxton, MJ ;
Berlin, C .
BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2004, 111 (08) :775-779
[6]   Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study [J].
Bollinger, Juli Murphy ;
Scott, Joan ;
Dvoskin, Rachel ;
Kaufman, David .
GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2012, 14 (04) :451-457
[7]   Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health-a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force [J].
Bridges, John F. P. ;
Hauber, A. Brett ;
Marshall, Deborah ;
Lloyd, Andrew ;
Prosser, Lisa A. ;
Regier, Dean A. ;
Johnson, F. Reed ;
Mauskopf, Josephine .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (04) :403-413
[8]  
Bridges JFP, 2008, PATIENT, V1, P273, DOI [10.2165/1312067-200801040-00009, 10.2165/01312067-200801040-00009]
[9]   IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research [J].
Dressler, Lynn G. ;
Smolek, Sondra ;
Ponsaran, Roselle ;
Markey, Janell M. ;
Starks, Helene ;
Gerson, Nancy ;
Lewis, Susan ;
Press, Nancy ;
Juengst, Eric ;
Wiesner, Georgia L. .
GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2012, 14 (02) :215-222
[10]   Genetics researchers' and IRB professionals' attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis [J].
Edwards, Karen L. ;
Lemke, Amy A. ;
Trinidad, Susan B. ;
Lewis, Susan M. ;
Starks, Helene ;
Snapinn, Katherine W. ;
Griffin, Mary Quinn ;
Wiesner, Georgia L. ;
Burke, Wylie .
GENETICS IN MEDICINE, 2012, 14 (02) :236-242