Key drivers of family-level utility of pediatric genomic sequencing: a qualitative analysis to support preference research

  • Regier DA, Weymann D, Buchanan J, Marshall DA, Wordsworth S. Valuation of Health and Nonhealth Outcomes from Next-Generation Sequencing: Approaches, Challenges, and Solutions. Value Health. 2018;21:1043–7.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Smith HS, McGuire AL, Wittenberg E, Lavelle TA. Family-level impact of genetic testing: integrating health economics and ethical, legal, and social implications. Personalized Med. 2021;18:209–12.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Kohler JN, Turbitt E, Biesecker BB. Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017;25:662–8.

    Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

  • Mollison L, O’Daniel JM, Henderson GE, Berg JS, Skinner D. Parents’ perceptions of personal utility of exome sequencing results. Genet Med. 2020;22:752–7.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Kohler JN, Turbitt E, Lewis KL, Wilfond BS, Jamal L, Peay HL, et al. Defining personal utility in genomics: A Delphi study. Clin Genet. 2017;92:290–7.

    Article CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar

  • Watnick D, Odgis JA, Suckiel SA, Gallagher KM, Teitelman N, Donohue KE, et al. “Is that something that should concern me?”: a qualitative exploration of parent understanding of their child’s genomic test results. HGG Adv. 2021;2:100027.

  • Pollard S, Weymann D, Dunne J, Mayanloo F, Buckell J, Buchanan J, et al. Toward the diagnosis of rare childhood genetic diseases: what do parents value most? Eur J Hum Genet. 2021;29(10):1491–501.

  • Lee W, Luca S, Costain G, Snell M, Marano M, Curtis M, et al. Genome sequencing among children with medical complexity: What constitutes value from parents’ perspective? JJ Genet Couns. 2022;31:523-33.

  • Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587–611.

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  • Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. PharmacoEconomics 2019;37:201–26.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care: Springer Science & Business Media; 2007.

  • Mühlbacher A, Johnson FR. Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: state of the practice. Appl health Econ health policy. 2016;14:253–66.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Ozdemir S, Lee JJ, Chaudhry I, Ocampo RRQ. A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing. Patient – Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2022;15:39–54.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:25–30.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Coast J, Al‐Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21:730–41.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Kløjgaard ME, Bech M, Søgaard R. Designing a stated choice experiment: the value of a qualitative process. J Choice Model. 2012;5:1–18.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Best S, Stark Z, Phillips P, Wu Y, Long JC, Taylor N, et al. Clinical genomic testing: what matters to key stakeholders? Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28:866–73.

    Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

  • Abbott M, McKenzie L, Moran BVG, Heidenreich S, Hernández R, Hocking-Mennie L, et al. Continuing the sequence? Towards an economic evaluation of whole genome sequencing for the diagnosis of rare diseases in Scotland. J Commun Genet. 2022;13:487–501.

  • Hammond J, Klapwijk JE, Riedijk S, Lou S, Ormond KE, Vogel I, et al. Assessing women’s preferences towards tests that may reveal uncertain results from prenatal genomic testing: Development of attributes for a discrete choice experiment, using a mixed-methods design. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0261898.

    Article CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar

  • Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37:298–313.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Smith HS, Morain SR, Robinson JO, Canfield I, Malek J, Rubanovich CK, et al. Perceived Utility of Genomic Sequencing: Qualitative Analysis and Synthesis of a Conceptual Model to Inform Patient-Centered Instrument Development. The Patient – Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2021.

  • Halley MC, Young JL, Fernandez L, Kohler JN, Bernstein JA, Wheeler MT, et al. Perceived utility and disutility of genomic sequencing for pediatric patients: Perspectives from parents with diverse sociodemographic characteristics. Am J Med Genet A 2022;188:1088–101.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf. 2009;42:377–81.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Chassagne A, Pélissier A, Houdayer F, Cretin E, Gautier E, Salvi D, et al. Exome sequencing in clinical settings: preferences and experiences of parents of children with rare diseases (SEQUAPRE study). Eur J Hum Genet. 2019;27:701–10.

    Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

  • Lewis MA, Stine A, Paquin RS, Mansfield C, Wood D, Rini C, et al. Parental preferences toward genomic sequencing for non-medically actionable conditions in children: a discrete-choice experiment. Genet Med. 2018;20:181–9.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Marshall DA, MacDonald KV, Heidenreich S, Hartley T, Bernier FP, Gillespie MK, et al. The value of diagnostic testing for parents of children with rare genetic diseases. Genet Med. 2019;21:2798–806.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26:724–35.

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  • Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. APA handbooks in psychology®. Washington, DC, US:, American Psychological Association; 2012. p. 57-71.

  • VERBI Software MAXQDA 2022 Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software; 2021.

  • Hollin IL, Craig BM, Coast J, Beusterien K, Vass C, DiSantostefano R, et al. Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers. The Patient – Patient-Centered Outcomes. Research. 2020;13:121–36.

    Google Scholar

  • Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.

    Article Google Scholar

  • Texas Children’s Hospital Genetics Clinic 2020[Availablefrom:https://wwwtexaschildrensorg/departments/genetics[Availablefrom:https://wwwtexaschildrensorg/departments/genetics

  • Back to top button
    MONTAGNEDISTRIBUTION