Back

Designing national programs for expanded carrier screening: Results from a discrete-choice experiment in Singapore

Blythe, R.; Senanayake, S.; Bylstra, Y.; Roberts, J.; Choi, C.; Yeo, M. J.; Goh, J.; Graves, N.; Koh, A. L.; Jamuar, S. S.

2026-04-13 health economics
10.64898/2026.04.09.26350563 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCarrier screening for inherited genetic disorders can reduce the burden of conditions that lead to childhood morbidity and mortality, including thalassaemia, cystic fibrosis, and spinal muscular atrophy. To be successful, national carrier screening programs should aim to maximise uptake, which may depend on population preferences for screening characteristics. In this study, we aimed to determine how expanded carrier screening in Singapore should be designed based on operational factors including suggested copayments, wait times, and disorders included in screening panels. MethodsWe elicited stated preferences for the design of a hypothetical national carrier screening program with seven attributes from 500 Singaporeans of reproductive age (18 to 54). A discrete choice experiment was applied using 30 choice tasks with 3 alternatives per task, divided between 3 blocks. The mixed multinomial logit model was used to estimate willingness-to-pay for each attribute level. Predicted uptake for three plausible screening programs was assessed, with copayment amounts from $0 to $1,200 in increments of $30. Impact on the annual national budget was calculated as a function of 25,000 expected eligible couples per year. All costs were reported in 2026 SGD. ResultsRespondents showed the strongest preferences for cost, followed by the number of diseases included in the panel, then wait times, with limited impact of remaining attributes. With no copayments, predicted uptake ranged from 85% [95% CI: 83% to 87%] to 90% [88% to 92%] for the basic and utility-maximising screening programs, respectively. This declined to 61% [56% to 66%] and 69% [65% to 73%] and, respectively, at a copayment of $1,200 per test. The model predicted higher uptake if a selection of screening alternatives were available, compared to a single program. The budget impact was highly dependent on population eligibility, copayments, and couples decision-making processes, but was unlikely to exceed $22.5m [$19.0m to $26.6m] per year unless expanded beyond married couples. ConclusionsThere was high predicted demand for carrier screening even as copayments increased. Successful strategies to improve uptake may include reducing copays and wait times, increasing the number of screening options available to prospective parents, and increasing program eligibility beyond pre-conception married couples.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.6%
2
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
3
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.3%
5
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.2%
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.7%
8
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
9
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
10
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
11
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
12
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
14
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
15
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
16
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
17
Journal of Global Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
18
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
19
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
20
Archives of Disease in Childhood
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
21
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
22
Journal of Genetics and Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
23
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
24
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
25
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
26
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
27
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
28
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
29
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
30
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%