Women’s preferences, willingness-to-pay, and predicted uptake for single-nucleotide polymorphism gene testing to guide personalized breast cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment

References

• Global Burden of Disease Cancer CollaborationFitzmauriceCAllenCGlobal, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease studyJAMA Oncol20173452454827918777
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weedon-FekjærHRomundstadPRVattenLJModern mammography screening and breast cancer mortality: population studyBMJ2014348g370124951459
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LøbergMLousdalMLBretthauerMKalagerMBenefits and harms of mammography screeningBreast Cancer Res20151716325928287
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DarabiHCzeneKZhaoWLiuJHallPHumphreysKBreast cancer risk prediction and individualised screening based on common genetic variation and breast density measurementBreast Cancer Res2012141R2522314178
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TyrerJDuffySWCuzickJA breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factorsStat Med20042371111113015057881
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Risk CalculatorBreast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Available from: https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/BC5yearRisk/calculator.htmAccessed January 8, 2018
   Google Scholar
• PaceLEKeatingNLA systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisionsJAMA2014311131327133524691608
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AmirEFreedmanOCSerugaBEvansDGAssessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment modelsJ Natl Cancer Inst20101021068069120427433
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TiceJACummingsSRSmith-BindmanRIchikawaLBarlowWEKerlikowskeKUsing clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive modelAnn Intern Med2008148533734718316752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EastonDFPooleyKADunningAMGenome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility lociNature200744771481087109317529967
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TurnbullCAhmedSMorrisonJGenome-wide association study identifies five new breast cancer susceptibility lociNat Genet201042650450720453838
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FletcherOJohnsonNOrrNNovel breast cancer susceptibility locus at 9q31.2: results of a genome-wide association studyJ Natl Cancer Inst2011103542543521263130
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ZhengWZhangBCaiQCommon genetic determinants of breast-cancer risk in East Asian women: a collaborative study of 23 637 breast cancer cases and 25 579 controlsHum Mol Genet201322122539255023535825
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PurringtonKSSlagerSEcclesDGenome-wide association study identifies 25 known breast cancer susceptibility loci as risk factors for triple-negative breast cancerCarcinogenesis20143551012101924325915
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MichailidouKBeesleyJLindstromSGenome-wide association analysis of more than 120,000 individuals identifies 15 new susceptibility loci for breast cancerNat Genet201547437338025751625
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RippergerTGadzickiDMeindlASchlegelbergerBBreast cancer susceptibility: current knowledge and implications for genetic counsellingEur J Hum Genet200917672273119092773
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van VeenEMBrentnallARByersHUse of single-nucleotide polymorphisms and mammographic density plus classic risk factors for breast cancer risk predictionJAMA Oncol20184447647729346471
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ShiehYHuDMaLJoint relative risks for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer from a clinical model, polygenic risk score, and sex hormonesBreast Cancer Res Treat2017166260361228791495
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ShiehYHuDMaLBreast cancer risk prediction using a clinical risk model and polygenic risk scoreBreast Cancer Res Treat2016159351352527565998
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EssermanLJWISDOM Study and Athena InvestigatorsThe WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debateNPJ Breast Cancer2017313428944288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YoungMAForrestLERasmussenVMMaking sense of SNPs: women’s understanding and experiences of receiving a personalized profile of their breast cancer risksJ Genet Couns201827370270829168041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HoweRMiron-ShatzTHanochYOmerZBO’DonoghueCOzanneEMPersonalized medicine through SNP testing for breast cancer risk: clinical implementationJ Genet Couns201524574475125519004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GravesKDPeshkinBNLutaGTuongWSchwartzMDInterest in genetic testing for modest changes in breast cancer risk: implications for SNP testingPublic Health Genomics201114317818921464556
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JohnsonFRZhouMPatient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessments: a US perspectiveValue Health201619674174527712700
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MühlbacherACJuhnkeCBeyerARGarnerSPatient-focused benefit-risk analysis to inform regulatory decisions: the european union perspectiveValue Health201619673474027712699
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HaileyDNordwallMSurvey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programsInt J Technol Assess Health Care200622449749916984683
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FaceyKBoivinAGraciaJPatients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberationInt J Technol Assess Health Care201026333434020584364
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyrd-HansenDCost-benefit analysis of mammography screening in Denmark based on discrete ranking dataInt J Technol Assess Health Care200016381182111028136
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GerardKShanahanMLouviereJUsing stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: a pilot study of breast screening participationAppl Econ200335910731085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VassCMRigbyDPayneKInvestigating the heterogeneity in women’s preferences for breast screening: does the communication of risk matter?Value Health201821221922829477404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SicsicJPelletier-FleuryNMoumjidNWomen’s benefits and harms trade-offs in breast cancer screening: results from a discrete-choice experimentValue Health2018211788829304944
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PeacockSApicellaCAndrewsLA discrete choice experiment of preferences for genetic counselling among Jewish women seeking cancer genetics servicesBr J Cancer200695101448145317102813
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BuchananJWordsworthSSchuhAPatients’ preferences for genomic diagnostic testing in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a discrete choice experimentPatient20169652553627167075
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• VeldwijkJLambooijMSKallenbergFGPreferences for genetic testing for colorectal cancer within a population-based screening program: a discrete choice experimentEur J Hum Genet201624336136626036860
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KnightSJMohamedAFMarshallDALadabaumUPhillipsKAWalshJMEValue of genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer in a probability-based US online sampleMed Decis Mak2015356734744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OrmeBSample Size Issues for Conjoint AnalysisResearch Publishers LLC Available from: https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/samplesz.pdfAccessed January 8, 2018
   Google Scholar
• de Bekker-GrobEWDonkersBJonkerMFStolkEASample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guidePatient20158537338425726010
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BridgesJFHauberABMarshallDConjoint analysis applications in health – a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task ForceValue Health201114440341321669364
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WongXYChongKJvan TilJAWeeHLA qualitative study on Singaporean women’s views towards breast cancer screening and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) gene testing to guide personalised screening strategiesBMC Cancer201717177629162038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of Risk (Wisdom Study) (WISDOM) ClinicalTrials.gov. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02620852Accessed February 9, 2018
   Google Scholar
• OrmeBIncluding Holdout Choice Tasks in Conjoint StudiesSawtooth Software Available from: https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/inclhold.pdfAccessed June 8, 2018
   Google Scholar
• Reed JohnsonFLancsarEMarshallDConstructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task ForceValue Health201316131323337210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LancsarEFiebigDGHoleARDiscrete choice experiments: a guide to model specification, estimation and softwarePharmacoeconomics201735769771628374325
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TrainKEWeeksMDiscrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay spaceScarpaRAlberiniAApplication of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource EconomicsDordrechtSpringer2005116
   Google Scholar
• TrainKEIndividual-level parametersDiscrete Choice Methods with SimulationCambridgeCambridge University Press2009295319
   Google Scholar
• Health Care DisparitiesNational Committee of Quality Assurance Available from: http://www.ncqa.org/hedis-quality-measurement/research/health-care-disparitiesAccessed February 9, 2018
   Google Scholar
• DongDOzdemirSMong BeeYTohS-ABilgerMFinkelsteinEMeasuring high-risk patients’ preferences for pharmacogenetic testing to reduce severe adverse drug reaction: a discrete choice experimentValue Health201619676777527712704
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groothuis-OudshoornCGFermontJMvan TilJAIJzermanMJPublic stated preferences and predicted uptake for genome-based colorectal cancer screeningBMC Med Inform Decis Mak20141411824642027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WongHZLimWYMaSSChuaLAHengDMHealth screening behaviour among SingaporeansAnn Acad Med Singapore201544932633426584661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LoyEYMolinarDChowKYFockCNational Breast Cancer Screening Programme, Singapore: evaluation of participation and performance indicatorsJ Med Screen201522419420026081449
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WeeLEKohGCChinRTYeoWXSeowBChuaDSocioeconomic factors affecting colorectal, breast and cervical cancer screening in an Asian urban low-income setting at baseline and post-interventionPrev Med2012551616722561028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CalzoneKACashionAFeethamSNurses transforming health care using genetics and genomicsNurs Outlook2010581263520113752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TorranceNMollisonJWordsworthSGenetic nurse counsellors can be an acceptable and cost-effective alternative to clinical geneticists for breast cancer risk genetic counselling. Evidence from two parallel randomised controlled equivalence trialsBr J Cancer200695443544416832415
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CrawfordBAdamsSBSittlerTMulti-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer predisposition in unsolved high-risk breast and ovarian cancer patientsBreast Cancer Res Treat2017163238339028281021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VeldwijkJLambooijMSde Bekker-GrobEWSmitHAde WitGAThe effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experimentsPLoS One2014911e11180525365169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MartiJBachhuberMFeingoldJMeadsDRichardsMHennessySFinancial incentives to discontinue long-term benzodiazepine use: a discrete choice experiment investigating patient preferences and willingness to participateBMJ Open201771019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epidemiology and Disease Control DivisionNational Health Survey2010Ministry of HealthSingapore Available from: https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/dam/moh_web/Publications/Reports/2011/NHS2010%20-%20low%20res.pdfAccessed February 9, 2018
   Google Scholar
• Department of Statistics SingaporeGeneral Household Survey 2015: Table 87 Resident Households by Monthly Household Income from Work and Type of DwellingGovernment of Singapore2015 Available from: https://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/ghs/ghs2015contentAccessed February 15, 2018
   Google Scholar