4.6 Editorial Material

Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 570-574

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181a2743e

关键词

genetic testing; personalized medicine; utility; health awareness; ethics

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA114626] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [RR017703] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NHGRI NIH HHS [HG003390, R01 HG004500, HG004500] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In evaluating the utility of human genome-wide assays, the answer will differ depending on why the question is asked. For purposes of regulating medical tests, a restrictive sense of clinical utility is used, although it may be possible to have clinical utility without changing patient's outcomes and clinical utility may vary between patients. For purposes of using limited third party or public health resources, cost effectiveness should be evaluated in a societal rather than individual context. However, for other health uses of genomic information a broader sense of overall utility should be used. Behavioral changes and increased individual awareness of health-related choices are relevant metrics for evaluating the personal utility of genomic information, even when traditional clinical benefits are not manifested. In taking account of personal utility, cost effectiveness may be calculated on an individual and societal basis. Overall measures of utility (including both restrictive clinical measures and measures of personal utility) may vary significantly between individuals depending on potential changes in lifestyle, health awareness and behaviors, family dynamics, and personal choice and interest as well as the psychological effects of disease risk perception. That interindividual variation suggests that a more expansive overall measure of utility could be used to identify individuals who are more likely to benefit from personal genomic information as well as those for whom the risks of personal information may be greater than any benefits. Genet Med 2009:11(8):570-574.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据