Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment

- This study used the discrete choice experiments methodology to assess the value judgments that different stakeholders believe should guide resource allocation decision making in genetic testing.
- Results suggests that respondents highly valued prioritising genetic tests with clear proven medical benefit, for patients that have a high risk of having a condition and with low costs of testing.
- The findings also highlight important differences in preferences between clinical geneticists and other experts. Clinical geneticists attached significantly higher values to testing high risk groups and conducting low costs test but lower value to conducting tests where medical benefit is only likely rather than proven.
- The findings from this study might serve as a point of reference in decision making and can inform the policy debate on prioritising genetic tests.

As our understanding of genetics has increased, so has the number of genetic tests that have entered clinical practice. Given the need of many European health care systems to contain costs, the question of how to prioritise genetic tests fairly has become an emerging concern.This study uses a discrete-choice experiment to assess the value judgements of clinical geneticists, patient representatives and other stakeholders regarding the prioritisation of genetic tests. The respondents chose between two hypothetical scenarios that differed in severity of the disease, risk of the disease, aim of the test, medical benefit of the test, and costs of the test. Standard logit models and mixed effects models were used to estimate the weights different stakeholders attached to attribute levels.Responses from 594 participants were analysed. The most highly valued attribute levels were a proven medical benefit of the test, high risk of having the disease and low costs of the test. Results also showed that rankings differ between clinical geneticists and other stakeholders.The priority weights determined within this study can inform the policy debate and improve the consistency of prioritisation in genetics. Further stakeholder deliberation is needed to explore their most appropriate use in decision practice.