Background: The UK Genetic Testing Network (UKGTN) established a process for the evaluation of genetic tests for entry onto the National Health Service (NHS) Directory of Molecular Genetic Testing. The Network requested the development and piloting of a prioritization framework that could be used for the commissioning of genetic tests by the NHS. Methods: A selected working group developed and piloted a multi-criteria prioritization process using 10 genetic tests evaluated by the UKGTN. Results: The framework was able to rank the 10 genetic tests used in the pilot. The rankings were also consistent with the commissioning recommendations for these genetic tests by the UKGTN. Conclusion: A set of criteria for the prioritization of genetic tests has been developed. The results from the pilot suggest that the methodology is valid and robust but requires considerable resources to implement. Further development of the process is needed before the framework could be used to influence commissioning decisions for clinical genetic services in the NHS.

Keywords:
Genetic test, Prioritization, Healthcare services
1.
UK Genetic Testing Network, Framework for Delivering the UK Genetic TestingNetwork. UKGTN 2005 http://www.ukgtn.nhs.uk/gtn/Information/The+UKGTN/Framework+for+Delivery (accessed December 15, 2009).
2.
UK Genetic Testing Network, Gene Dossier. UKGTN 2009 http://www.ukgtn.nhs.uk/gtn/Information/Services/Gene+Dossiers/Forms (accessed December 15, 2009).
3.
Haddow J, Palomaki G: ACCE: a model process for evaluating data on emerging genetic tests; in Khoury M, Little J, Burke W (eds): Human Genome Epidemiology. New York, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp 217–233.
4.
Holtzman NA: Promoting safe and effective genetic tests in the United States: work of the Task Force on Genetic Testing. Clin Chem 1999;45:732–738.
5.
Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention, CDC. ACCE Model Process for Evaluating Genetic Tests. Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE/index.htm (accessed December 15, 2009).
6.
Kroese M, Zimmern RL, Farndon P, Stewart F, Whittaker J: How can genetic tests be evaluated for clinical use? Experience of the UK Genetic Testing Network. Eur J Hum Genet 2007;15:917–921.
7.
UK Genetic Testing Network, Testing Criteria for Molecular Genetic Tests. UKGTN 2009 http://www.ukgtn.nhs.uk/gtn/Information/Services/Testing_Criteria (accessed December 15, 2009).
8.
Klein R, Day P, Redmayne S: Managing scarcity: priority setting and rationing in the National Health Service. Open University Press, 1996.
9.
Wilson E, Sussex J, MacLeod C, Fordham R: Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:80–85.
10.
Wilson EC, Rees J, Fordham RJ: Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006;4:3.
11.
Baltussen R, Niessen L: Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006;4:14.
12.
Victoria M, Malcolm M, Graeme K, Karen J: Public sector priority setting using decision support tools. Aust J Public Administr 2001;60:44–59.
13.
Baltussen R, ten Asbroek AH, Koolman X, Shrestha N, Bhattarai P, Niessen LW: Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal? Health Policy Plan 2007;22:178–185.
14.
Burke W, Zimmern R: Moving beyond ACCE: An expanded framework for genetic test evaluation. A paper for the United Kingdom Genetic Testing Network. September 2007, http://www.phgfoundation.org/.
15.
GeneReviews. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/GeneTests/review?db=GeneTests (accessed December 15, 2009).
16.
Grosse S, Wordsworth S, Payne K: Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. Genet Med 2008;10:648–654.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.