Barriers to integrating personalized medicine into clinical practice: a best–worst scaling choice experiment

Purpose:As advances in genomics make genome sequencing more affordable, the availability of new genome-based diagnostic and therapeutic strategies (i.e., personalized medicine) will increase. This wave will hit front-line physicians who may be faced with a plethora of patients’ expectations of integrating genomic data into clinical care. The objective of this study was to elicit the preferences of physicians about regarding applying personalized medicine in their clinical practice as these strategies become available.Methods:Using a best–worst scaling (BWS) choice experiment, we estimated the relative importance of attributes that influence physicians’ decision for using personalized medicine. Six attributes were included in the BWS: type of genetic tests, training for genetic testing, clinical guidelines, professional fee, privacy protection laws, and cost of genetic tests. A total of 197 physicians in British Columbia completed the experiment. Using latent class analysis (LCA), we explored the physicians’ heterogeneities in preferences.Results:“Type of genetic tests” had the largest importance, suggesting that the physicians’ decision was highly influenced by the availability of genetic tests for patients’ predisposition to diseases and/or drug response. “Training” and “guidelines” were the attributes with the next highest importance. LCA identified two classes of physicians. Relative to class 2, class 1 had a larger weight for the “type of genetic tests,” but smaller weights for “professional fee” and “cost of tests.”Conclusion:We measured relative importance of factors that affect the decision of physicians to incorporate personalized medicine in their practice. These results can be used to design the policies for supporting physicians and facilitating the use of personalized medicine in the future.Genet Med 2012:14(5):520–526

[1]  T. Peters,et al.  Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. , 2007, Journal of health economics.

[2]  J. Louviere,et al.  Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice , 2008 .

[3]  L. Lynd,et al.  An Evaluation of Patients' Willingness to Trade Symptom-Free Days for Asthma-Related Treatment Risks: A Discrete Choice Experiment , 2008, The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma.

[4]  R. Croyle,et al.  Physician use of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: results of a national survey. , 2003, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[5]  J. Louviere,et al.  Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices , 2005 .

[6]  R. Service The Race for the $1000 Genome , 2006, Science.

[7]  R. Croyle,et al.  US physicians' attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer susceptibility , 2003, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[8]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Bayesian and classical estimation of mixed logit: An application to genetic testing. , 2009, Journal of health economics.

[9]  Jaekyu Shin,et al.  Pharmacogenetics: from discovery to patient care. , 2009, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

[10]  David A. Hensher,et al.  A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit , 2003 .

[11]  M Ryan,et al.  Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. , 2001, Health technology assessment.

[12]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Modeling the choices of individual decision-makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information , 2008 .

[13]  T. Lumley,et al.  Motivating factors for physician ordering of factor V Leiden genetic tests. , 2009, Archives of internal medicine.

[14]  R. Gramling,et al.  Predictive genetics in primary care: Expectations for the motivational impact of genetic testing affects the importance family physicians place on screening for familial cancer risk , 2003, Genetics in Medicine.

[15]  R. Nussbaum,et al.  Addressing the Challenges of the Clinical Application of Pharmacogenetic Testing , 2009, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[16]  Paul G Shekelle,et al.  Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. , 2008, JAMA.

[17]  Francis S Collins,et al.  The genome gets personal--almost. , 2008, JAMA.

[18]  M. Gantley,et al.  Tensions between policy makers and general practitioners in implementing new genetics: grounded theory interview study , 1999, BMJ.

[19]  Patricia Goodson,et al.  Barriers to the provision of genetic services by primary care physicians: A systematic review of the literature , 2003, Genetics in Medicine.

[20]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity. , 2011, Health economics.

[21]  L. Wilkins-Haug,et al.  Obstetrician-gynecologists' opinions and attitudes on the role of genetics in women's health. , 2000, Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine.

[22]  W. Grody,et al.  Keeping up with the next generation: massively parallel sequencing in clinical diagnostics. , 2008, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[23]  F. Takada,et al.  Physicians' opinion for ‘new’ genetic testing in Japan , 2009, Journal of Human Genetics.

[24]  B. Psaty,et al.  Personalized medicine in the era of genomics. , 2007, JAMA.

[25]  John D Potter,et al.  Genetic susceptibility to cancer: the role of polymorphisms in candidate genes. , 2008, JAMA.

[26]  G. Glendon,et al.  Genetic susceptibility to cancer. Family physicians' experience. , 2003, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[27]  E. Podolak Sequencing's new race. , 2010, BioTechniques.

[28]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  Personal genome sequencing: current approaches and challenges. , 2010, Genes & development.

[29]  D. Levy,et al.  Primary care physicians' concerns about offering a genetic test to tailor smoking cessation treatment , 2007, Genetics in Medicine.

[30]  M. Spitz,et al.  Genetic susceptibility to cancer: ICRP Publication 79 , 1993, Cancer.

[31]  J. Louviere,et al.  Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[32]  Malorye Allison,et al.  Is personalized medicine finally arriving? , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[33]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[34]  K. Payne,et al.  Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.