uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Points to consider for prioritizing clinical genetic testing services: a European consensus process oriented at accountability for reasonableness
Show others and affiliations
2015 (English)In: European Journal of Human Genetics, ISSN 1018-4813, E-ISSN 1476-5438, Vol. 23, 729-735 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 23, 729-735 p.
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-245799DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.190ISI: 000354474600009PubMedID: 25248395OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-245799DiVA: diva2:791534
Available from: 2015-03-01 Created: 2015-03-01 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(379 kB)66 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 379 kBChecksum SHA-512
36e8904d6f7e8e31345eb86b24a07e57c5dd3042c3b81b0226e1973238ec6bfb6eccc5c91334e4781401368235a56987820655e564cf38ccd7b97032c75b9715
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Howard, Heidi C

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Howard, Heidi C
By organisation
Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics
In the same journal
European Journal of Human Genetics
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 66 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 501 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf