Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25421341›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Stakeholder attitudes towards the role and application of informed consent for newborn bloodspot screening: a study protocol.

S G Nicholls, L Tessier, H Etchegary, J C Brehaut, B K Potter, R Z Hayeems, P Chakraborty, J Marcadier, J Milburn, D Pullman and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

12 authors.

S G NichollsDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
L TessierDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
H EtchegaryClinical Epidemiology, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
J C BrehautOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
B K PotterDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
R Z HayeemsChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
P ChakrabortyNewborn Screening Ontario, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
J MarcadierNewborn Screening Ontario, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
J MilburnBetter Outcomes Registry and Network (BORN), Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
D PullmanFaculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
L TurnerEastern Health, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
B J WilsonDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research EOG-131589
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNewborn bloodspot screening (NBS) involves testing a small sample of blood taken from the heel of the newborn for a number of serious and life-limiting conditions. In Canada, newborn screening programmes fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction with no federal coordination. To date, we know very little about the underlying beliefs around different consent practices or how terminology is interpreted by different individuals. Differences in attitudes may have important healthcare consequences. This study will provide empirical data comparing stakeholder opinions on their understanding of consent-related terminology, the perceived applicability of different consent approaches to newborn screening, and the requirements of these different approaches. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Parents, healthcare professionals and policymakers will be recruited in the provinces of Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador. Parents will be identified through records held by each provincial screening programme. Healthcare professionals will be purposively sampled on the basis of engagement with newborn screening. Within each province we will identify policymakers who have policy analysis or advisory responsibilities relating to NBS. Data collection will be by qualitative interviews. We will conduct 20 interviews with parents of young children, 10 interviews with key healthcare professionals across the range of appropriate specialties and 10 with policymakers at each site (40 per site, total, N=80). The examination of the transcripts will follow a thematic analysis approach. Recruitment started in June 2014 and is expected to be complete by June 2015. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethics approval from the Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board, the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Ethics Board (both Ontario), and the Health Research Ethics Authority (Newfoundland and Labrador).

resultsThese will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will have specific application to the development of parent education materials for newborn screening.

Indexed as

AttitudeBlood Specimen CollectionInformed ConsentNeonatal ScreeningHealth PersonnelHumansInfant, NewbornParentsResearch DesignattitudesconsentethicsinterviewsPUBLIC HEALTHscreening

Identifiers

PMID25421341
PMCPMC4244491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.