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. Evaluating health and non-health outcomes from next-generation sequencing: approaches, challenges, and solutions. Value health. 2018;21:1043–7.

    ArticleGoogle Scholar

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

    ArticleGoogle Scholar

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

    PubMed article Central Google Scholar

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

    ArticleGoogle 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.

    CAS article PubMed Central Google Scholar

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

  • Pollard S, Weymann D, Dunne J, Mayanloo F, Buckell J, Buchanan J, et al. Toward the diagnosis of childhood rare genetic disorders: 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 parental value? JJ Genet Conti. 2022;31:523-33.

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

    Article CAS Google Scholar

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

    ArticleGoogle Scholar

  • Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Assess Health and Healthcare: Springer Science & Business Media; 2007.

  • Muhlbacher A, Johnson FR. Choice experiments to quantify health and health care preferences: state of the practice. App Health Health Policy Econ. 2016;14:253–66.

    ArticleGoogle Scholar

  • Ozdemir S, Lee JJ, Chaudhry I, Ocampo RRQ. A systematic review of discrete choice experiments and conjoint analysis on genetic testing. Patient – Patient Focused Outcomes Res. 2022; 3:39–54.

    ArticleGoogle Scholar

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

    ArticleGoogle Scholar

  • Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods to develop attributes for discrete choice experiments: problems and recommendations. Echo health. 2012;21:730–41.

    ArticleGoogle Scholar

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

    ArticleGoogle Scholar

  • Best S, Stark Z, Phillips P, Wu Y, Long JC, Taylor N, and others Clinical Genomics Trials: What Matters to Key Stakeholders? Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28:866–73.

    PubMed article 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. JCommun Genet. 2022;13:487–501.

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

    CAS article 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.

    ArticleGoogle 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 the development of patient-centered tools. The Patient – Patient Focused Outcomes Research. 2021.

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

    ArticleGoogle Scholar

  • Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Electronic Research Data Capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process to provide informatics support for translational research. J Biomedica Inf. 2009;42:377–81.

    ArticleGoogle 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.

    PubMed article Central Google Scholar

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

    ArticleGoogle 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 disorders. Genet Med. 2019;21:2798–806.

    ArticleGoogle Scholar

  • Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. The General Health Survey in Short Form MOS. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Medcare. 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 Textbooks in Psychology®. Washington, DC, USA:, American Psychological Association; 2012.p. 57-71.

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

  • Hollin IL, Craig BM, Coast J, Beusterien K, Vass C, DiSantostefano R, et al.. Reporting of formative qualitative research to support the development of quantitative preference study protocols and corresponding survey tools: guidelines for authors and reviewers . The Patient – Patient Focused 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 Sanità. 2007;19:349–57.

    ArticleGoogle Scholar

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

  • Leave a Comment

    %d bloggers like this: