Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21838829›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2013

Parental views on informed consent for expanded newborn screening.

Louise Moody, Kubra Choudhry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Informing Parents about Newborn Screening: A European Comparison Study.International journal of neonatal screening · 2021
    Article
  9. Factors Influencing Parental Awareness about Newborn Screening.International journal of neonatal screening · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Expectations and values about expanded newborn screening: a public engagement study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. There are some big changes in Health Expectations.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2013
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Louise MoodyDepartment of Industrial Design, Coventry University, UK. L.moody@coventry.ac.uk
Kubra Choudhry

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn increasing array of rare inherited conditions can be detected as part of the universal newborn screening programme. The introduction and evaluation of these service developments require consideration of the ethical issues involved and appropriate mechanisms for informing parents and gaining consent if required. Exploration of parental views is needed to inform the debate and specifically consider whether more flexible protocols are needed to fit with the public perception of new developments in this context.

objectiveThis study has been undertaken to explore perceptions and attitudes of parents and future parents to an expanded newborn screening programme in the United Kingdom and the necessary information provision and consent processes. DESIGN AND

participantsA mixed methods study involving focus groups (n = 29) and a web-survey (n = 142) undertaken with parents and future parents. RESULTS AND

conclusionsParents want guaranteed information provision with clear decision-making powers and an awareness of the choices available to them. The difference between existing screening provision and expanded screening was not considered to be significant enough by participants to warrant formal written, informed consent for expanded screening. It is argued that the ethical review processes need to be more flexible towards the provision of information and consent processes for service developments in newborn screening.

Indexed as

Data CollectionDecision MakingFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInfant, NewbornInformed ConsentMaleNeonatal ScreeningParentsPatient Acceptance of Health CareUnited Kingdomexpanded newborn screeningheel-prick testinformed consent

Identifiers

PMID21838829
PMCPMC5060664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.