Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22398141›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2012

Assessing public attitudes on the retention and use of residual newborn screening blood samples: a focus group study.

Erin Rothwell, Rebecca Anderson, Aaron Goldenberg, Michelle H Lewis, Louisa Stark, Matthew Burbank, Bob Wong, Jeffrey R Botkin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Content of First Prenatal Visits.Maternal and child health journal · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Deliberative Discussion Focus Groups.Qualitative health research · 2016
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2014
    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

8 authors.

Erin RothwellUniversity of Utah, Nursing, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. erin.rothwell@nurs.utah.edu
Rebecca Anderson
Aaron Goldenberg
Michelle H Lewis
Louisa Stark
Matthew Burbank
Bob Wong
Jeffrey R Botkin

Funding

Methods for Promoting Public Dialogue on the Use of Residual Newborn Screening SaR01HG004970 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI BOTKIN, JEFFREY R. · 2008 to 2010
$1.7M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG004970NHGRI NIH HHS R01HG004970-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper discusses attitudes and opinions of a diverse group of participants toward the retention and use of residual newborn blood samples for research. Data were drawn from focus groups based in six states in the USA, and results provide support for the retention and use of residual newborn blood samples for research when parental permission is asked beforehand. However, there were a number of concerns that also warrant attention for the development of policy and maintaining trust with the public, such as timing of permission, use of samples already stored, level of personal control of sample use and education. The results demonstrate the complexity of the topic and the ethical ambiguities associated with the retention and use of residual newborn blood samples.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthPublic OpinionBiomedical ResearchBlood Specimen CollectionFocus GroupsHealth EducationHumansInfant, NewbornNeonatal ScreeningOwnershipRisk AssessmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22398141
PMCPMC3343738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.