Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24043381›Full record

ArticleJournal of inherited metabolic disease2014

Considering consent: a structural equation modelling analysis of factors influencing decisional quality when accepting newborn screening.

Stuart G Nicholls, Kevin W Southern

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of inherited metabolic disease, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Stuart G NichollsDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, K1H 8M5, Ottawa, Canada, snicholl@uottawa.ca.
Kevin W Southern

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNewborn bloodspot screening (NBS) programs generate an ethical tension between promoting the uptake of effective public health measures and facilitating informed consent from individuals.

aimTo explore the factors that affect parental perceptions of decision quality when accepting NBS

methodsSurvey of parents with children screened in 2008 (n = 154, 32% response rate). Questions were based on previous research and existing measures. The primary outcome was decision quality. Predictors were latent constructs of Attitudes to medicine, Perceived knowledge, Attitudes to screening, and Perceived choice. Responses were analysed using structural equation modelling.

resultsIncreases in perceived choice and positive attitudes towards screening improved decision quality. Perceived knowledge had a significant and positive relationship with attitudes to screening (0.375, p < 0.01) as did perceived choice on perceived knowledge (0.806, p < 0.01). Attitudes to screening were also significantly influenced by attitudes to medicine, although less so than the effect of perceived knowledge. The model had good fit on all indices (χ(2) = 61.396, df = 48, p = 0.093; CFI = 0.979; RMSEA = 0.043).

conclusionsOur results implicate the presentation of screening as a key determinant of decision quality both in terms of the immediate information regarding the potential benefits and risks, but also the way in which consent processes are managed. If we want to better understand parent decision-making we need to go beyond analyses of information content, or parental recall of this, but consider the context in which screening is provided.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorDecision MakingAdultChild, PreschoolHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInfant, NewbornInformed ConsentNeonatal ScreeningParentsYoung Adult

Identifiers

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.