Suppr超能文献

共付额对消费者基因组检测行为反应的影响。

Effect of co-payment on behavioral response to consumer genomic testing.

机构信息

Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Scripps Translational Science Institute, Scripps Genomic Medicine, Scripps Health, La Jolla, CA, USA.

出版信息

Transl Behav Med. 2018 Jan 29;8(1):130-136. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibx057.

Abstract

Existing research in consumer behavior suggests that perceptions and usage of a product post-purchase depends, in part, on how the product was marketed, including price paid. In the current study, we examine the effect of providing an out-of-pocket co-payment for consumer genomic testing (CGT) on consumer post-purchase behavior using both correlational field evidence and a hypothetical online experiment. Participants were enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study of the impact of CGT and completed behavioral assessments before and after receipt of CGT results. Most participants provided a co-payment for the test (N = 1668), while others (N = 369) received fully subsidized testing. The two groups were compared regarding changes in health behaviors and post-test use of health care resources. Participants who paid were more likely to share results with their physician (p = .012) and obtain follow-up health screenings (p = .005) relative to those who received fully subsidized testing. A follow-up online experiment in which participants (N = 303) were randomized to a "fully-subsidized" versus "co-payment" condition found that simulating provision of a co-payment significantly increased intentions to seek follow-up screening tests (p = .050) and perceptions of the test results as more trustworthy (p = .02). Provision of an out-of-pocket co-payment for CGT may influence consumer's post-purchase behavior consistent with a price placebo effect. Cognitive dissonance or sunk cost may help explain the increase in screening propensity among paying consumers. Such individuals may obtain follow-up screenings to validate their initial decision to expend personal resources to obtain CGT.

摘要

现有消费者行为研究表明,产品购买后的感知和使用在一定程度上取决于产品的营销方式,包括支付的价格。在当前的研究中,我们使用相关的现场证据和假设性的在线实验,研究了为消费者基因组检测(CGT)支付自付额对消费者购买后行为的影响。参与者被纳入了 CGT 对影响的纵向队列研究,并在收到 CGT 结果前后完成了行为评估。大多数参与者为测试支付了自付额(N=1668),而其他人(N=369)则接受了全额补贴测试。对两组参与者在健康行为变化和测试后使用医疗资源方面进行了比较。与接受全额补贴测试的参与者相比,支付费用的参与者更有可能与他们的医生分享结果(p=0.012)并获得后续健康筛查(p=0.005)。在一项后续的在线实验中,参与者(N=303)被随机分配到“全额补贴”与“自付额”条件下,发现模拟提供自付额显著增加了寻求后续筛查测试的意愿(p=0.050),并认为测试结果更值得信赖(p=0.02)。为 CGT 支付自付额可能会影响消费者的购买后行为,这与价格安慰剂效应一致。认知失调或沉没成本可能有助于解释支付消费者增加筛查倾向的原因。这些人可能会获得后续筛查,以验证他们最初决定花费个人资源来获得 CGT 的决定。

相似文献

1
Effect of co-payment on behavioral response to consumer genomic testing.
Transl Behav Med. 2018 Jan 29;8(1):130-136. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibx057.
2
Consumer Perceptions of Interactions With Primary Care Providers After Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing.
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Apr 19;164(8):513-22. doi: 10.7326/M15-0995. Epub 2016 Mar 1.
3
Discounting of medicines in Australian community pharmacies.
Aust Health Rev. 2014 Nov;38(5):517-22. doi: 10.1071/AH14012.
5
Implications of Personal Genomic Testing for Health Behaviors: The Case of Smoking.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 Dec;18(12):2273-2277. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw168. Epub 2016 Jul 12.
6
Communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic information: A landscape analysis of reviews.
Transl Behav Med. 2018 Jan 29;8(1):59-70. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibx063.
7
Perceptions of genetic counseling services in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing.
Clin Genet. 2013 Oct;84(4):335-9. doi: 10.1111/cge.12166. Epub 2013 May 13.
8
Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up.
J Med Genet. 2013 Jun;50(6):393-400. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-101207. Epub 2013 Apr 4.
9
Utilization of Genetic Counseling after Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study.
J Genet Couns. 2017 Dec;26(6):1270-1279. doi: 10.1007/s10897-017-0106-7. Epub 2017 May 16.
10
Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Feb 20;35(6):636-644. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.1503. Epub 2016 Dec 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Genomic health data generation in the UK: a 360 view.
Eur J Hum Genet. 2022 Jul;30(7):782-789. doi: 10.1038/s41431-021-00976-w. Epub 2021 Oct 19.

本文引用的文献

1
Diet and exercise changes following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing.
BMC Med Genomics. 2017 May 2;10(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12920-017-0258-1.
2
Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Feb 20;35(6):636-644. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.1503. Epub 2016 Dec 12.
5
Consumer Perceptions of Interactions With Primary Care Providers After Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing.
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Apr 19;164(8):513-22. doi: 10.7326/M15-0995. Epub 2016 Mar 1.
6
Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents.
Health Econ. 2012 Mar;21(3):238-51. doi: 10.1002/hec.1704. Epub 2010 Dec 28.
7
Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk.
N Engl J Med. 2011 Feb 10;364(6):524-34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011893. Epub 2011 Jan 12.
8
Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments.
Genet Med. 2010 Sep;12(9):556-66. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181eb51c6.
9
Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer's disease.
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 16;361(3):245-54. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0809578.
10
Commercial features of placebo and therapeutic efficacy.
JAMA. 2008 Mar 5;299(9):1016-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.9.1016.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验