Key factors in the family-level usefulness of pediatric genomic sequencing: a qualitative analysis to support preference research – European Journal of Human Genetics

Regier DA, Weymann D, Buchanan J, Marshall DA, Wordsworth S. Assessing health and non-health outcomes of next-generation sequencing: approaches, challenges, and solutions. Value health. 2018;21:1043–7.

Google Scholar article

Smith HS, McGuire AL, Wittenberg E, Lavelle TA. Impact of genetic testing on the family: integration of health economics and ethical, legal and social implications. Personalized med. 2021;18:209–12.

Google Scholar article

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

PubMed Central Google Scholar Article

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

Google Scholar article

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 PubMed Central Google Scholar Article

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 Adv. 2021;2:100027.

Pollard S, Weymann D, Dunne J, Mayanloo F, Buckell J, Buchanan J, et al. Towards the diagnosis of rare genetic diseases in children: what do parents value the 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 in children with medical complexity: what constitutes value from a parent’s perspective? JJ Genet Consulting. 2022;31:523-33.

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

CAS Google Scholar Article

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.

Google Scholar article

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

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

Google Scholar article

Ozdemir S, Lee JJ, Chaudhry I, Ocampo RRQ. A systematic review of discrete choice experiments and conjoint analysis of genetic testing. Patient – Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2022;15:39–54.

Google Scholar article

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

Google Scholar article

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 Eco. 2012;21:730–41.

Google Scholar article

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

Google Scholar article

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.

PubMed Central Google Scholar Article

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

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

CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar Article

Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. The role of qualitative research methods in discrete choice experiments. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37:298–313.

Google Scholar article

Smith HS, Morain SR, Robinson JO, Canfield I, Malek J, Rubanovich CK, et al. Perceived usefulness of genomic sequencing: qualitative analysis and synthesis of a conceptual model to inform the development of patient-centered instruments. The patient – Patient-centred outcome 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 from parents with diverse sociodemographic characteristics. Am J Med Genet A 2022;188:1088–101.

Google Scholar article

Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Condé JG. Electronic Research Data Capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research computational support. J Biomed Inf. 2009;42:377–81.

Google Scholar article

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

PubMed Central Google Scholar Article

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

Google Scholar article

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.

Google Scholar article

Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. The MOS Abridged General Health Survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Medical care. 1988;26:724–35.

CAS Google Scholar Article

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, 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. Report formative qualitative research to support the development of quantitative preference study protocols and corresponding survey instruments: guidelines for authors and reviewers. The Patient – Patient-centric outcomes. To research. 2020;13:121–36.

Google Scholar

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated Criteria for Qualitative Research Reporting (COREQ): A 32-point checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.

Google Scholar article

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