ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2014
Funding decisions for newborn screening: a comparative review of 22 decision processes in Europe.
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revolutionizing neonatal health: India's journey from assays to advanced genetics.Journal of applied genetics · 2026Review
- Data-Related and Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Traditional and Genomic Newborn Screening Programs.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Review
- Methodological and Procedural Considerations for Developing Decision Analytic Models to Assess the Health Economic Impacts of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Methodological Review.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Review
- Article
- The Methodological Quality and Challenges in Conducting Economic Evaluations of Newborn Screening: A Scoping Review.International journal of neonatal screening · 2020Article
- Challenges in Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Newborn Screening: The Example of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia.International journal of neonatal screening · 2020Review
- Incidental screen positive findings in a prospective cohort study in Matlab, Bangladesh: insights into expanded newborn screening for low-resource settings.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2019Article
- What Contribution Did Economic Evidence Make to the Adoption of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Policies in the United States?International journal of neonatal screening · 2018Article
- The Use of Economic Evaluation to Inform Newborn Screening Policy Decisions: The Washington State Experience.The Milbank quarterly · 2016Article
- Showing Value in Newborn Screening: Challenges in Quantifying the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Early Detection of Phenylketonuria and Cystic Fibrosis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decision-makers need to make choices to improve public health. Population-based newborn screening (NBS) is considered as one strategy to prevent adverse health outcomes and address rare disease patients' needs. The aim of this study was to describe key characteristics of decisions for funding new NBS programmes in Europe. We analysed past decisions using a conceptual framework. It incorporates indicators that capture the steps of decision processes by health care payers. Based on an internet survey, we compared 22 decisions for which answers among two respondents were validated for each observation. The frequencies of indicators were calculated to elicit key characteristics. All decisions resulted in positive, mostly unrestricted funding. Stakeholder participation was diverse focusing on information provision or voting. Often, decisions were not fully transparent. Assessment of NBS technologies concentrated on expert opinion, literature review and rough cost estimates. Most important appraisal criteria were effectiveness (i.e., health gain from testing for the children being screened), disease severity and availability of treatments. Some common and diverging key characteristics were identified. Although no evidence of explicit healthcare rationing was found, processes may be improved in respect of transparency and scientific rigour of assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.