Ilias Goranitis PhD , Daniel Sheen MSc , Zoe Fehlberg MPH , Andrew J. Mallett PhD , Stephanie Best PhD , Zornitza Stark PhD
{"title":"用于决策的基因组效用的标准化测量和评估尺度:guv尺度。","authors":"Ilias Goranitis PhD , Daniel Sheen MSc , Zoe Fehlberg MPH , Andrew J. Mallett PhD , Stephanie Best PhD , Zornitza Stark PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.11.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The multifaceted ways in which genomics can be valuable to clinicians, patients, families, and society are important for informing prioritization decisions by policy makers. This study aims to develop a standardized, cumulative, and preference-weighted genomic utility valuation (GUV) on a scale of 0% to 100%.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A multicriteria decision analysis was conducted with experts involved in policy, clinical, research, and consumer advocacy leadership in Australia for the valuation of policy priority indicators of genomic utility. The use of the GUV scale to support policy decisions is illustrated through a stylized example, and benchmark scoring thresholds of genomic utility were identified by mapping evidence from real-world health technology assessments leading to the public reimbursement of genomic testing in Australia onto the GUV scale.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 33 (73%) invited experts participated in the study. Clinical utility had the highest priority, followed by societal, diagnostic, economic, and family utilities. Improving health outcomes had the highest preference value (29.5%), followed by improving equity (22.6%), Having high diagnostic yield (22.2%), improving symptom management (15.5%), being cost saving (14.3%), having average diagnostic yield (13.1%), enabling access to clinical trials (12.3%), and enabling reproductive family planning (11.5%). Genomic testing scores from real-world health technology assessments ranged from 46% for syndromic and nonsyndromic intellectual disability to about 60% for mitochondrial conditions and genetic kidney diseases.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Comparisons of genomic utility across different clinical contexts may seem difficult because of the multiple criteria required to be weighted to support policy decisions. This comparison is now facilitated in a standardized manner with the GUV scale.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":"28 2","pages":"Pages 184-190"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Standardized Measurement and Valuation Scale of Genomic Utility for Policy Decisions: The GUV Scale\",\"authors\":\"Ilias Goranitis PhD , Daniel Sheen MSc , Zoe Fehlberg MPH , Andrew J. Mallett PhD , Stephanie Best PhD , Zornitza Stark PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2024.11.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The multifaceted ways in which genomics can be valuable to clinicians, patients, families, and society are important for informing prioritization decisions by policy makers. This study aims to develop a standardized, cumulative, and preference-weighted genomic utility valuation (GUV) on a scale of 0% to 100%.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A multicriteria decision analysis was conducted with experts involved in policy, clinical, research, and consumer advocacy leadership in Australia for the valuation of policy priority indicators of genomic utility. The use of the GUV scale to support policy decisions is illustrated through a stylized example, and benchmark scoring thresholds of genomic utility were identified by mapping evidence from real-world health technology assessments leading to the public reimbursement of genomic testing in Australia onto the GUV scale.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 33 (73%) invited experts participated in the study. Clinical utility had the highest priority, followed by societal, diagnostic, economic, and family utilities. Improving health outcomes had the highest preference value (29.5%), followed by improving equity (22.6%), Having high diagnostic yield (22.2%), improving symptom management (15.5%), being cost saving (14.3%), having average diagnostic yield (13.1%), enabling access to clinical trials (12.3%), and enabling reproductive family planning (11.5%). Genomic testing scores from real-world health technology assessments ranged from 46% for syndromic and nonsyndromic intellectual disability to about 60% for mitochondrial conditions and genetic kidney diseases.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Comparisons of genomic utility across different clinical contexts may seem difficult because of the multiple criteria required to be weighted to support policy decisions. This comparison is now facilitated in a standardized manner with the GUV scale.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\"28 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 184-190\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524067925\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524067925","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Standardized Measurement and Valuation Scale of Genomic Utility for Policy Decisions: The GUV Scale
Objectives
The multifaceted ways in which genomics can be valuable to clinicians, patients, families, and society are important for informing prioritization decisions by policy makers. This study aims to develop a standardized, cumulative, and preference-weighted genomic utility valuation (GUV) on a scale of 0% to 100%.
Methods
A multicriteria decision analysis was conducted with experts involved in policy, clinical, research, and consumer advocacy leadership in Australia for the valuation of policy priority indicators of genomic utility. The use of the GUV scale to support policy decisions is illustrated through a stylized example, and benchmark scoring thresholds of genomic utility were identified by mapping evidence from real-world health technology assessments leading to the public reimbursement of genomic testing in Australia onto the GUV scale.
Results
In total, 33 (73%) invited experts participated in the study. Clinical utility had the highest priority, followed by societal, diagnostic, economic, and family utilities. Improving health outcomes had the highest preference value (29.5%), followed by improving equity (22.6%), Having high diagnostic yield (22.2%), improving symptom management (15.5%), being cost saving (14.3%), having average diagnostic yield (13.1%), enabling access to clinical trials (12.3%), and enabling reproductive family planning (11.5%). Genomic testing scores from real-world health technology assessments ranged from 46% for syndromic and nonsyndromic intellectual disability to about 60% for mitochondrial conditions and genetic kidney diseases.
Conclusions
Comparisons of genomic utility across different clinical contexts may seem difficult because of the multiple criteria required to be weighted to support policy decisions. This comparison is now facilitated in a standardized manner with the GUV scale.
期刊介绍:
Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.