ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015
Framing optional genetic testing in the context of mandatory newborn screening tests.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Framing Effects on Decision-Making for Diagnostic Genetic Testing: Results from a Randomized Trial.Genes · 2021Trial
- Update of the Brazilian consensus recommendations on Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2023Review
- Early Check: translational science at the intersection of public health and newborn screening.BMC pediatrics · 2019Observational
- Qualitative Research on Expanded Prenatal and Newborn Screening: Robust but Marginalized.The Hastings Center report · 2019Article
- Business and Breakthrough: Framing (Expanded) Genetic Carrier Screening for the Public.Health communication · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundParents are increasingly faced with decisions about optional newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) despite no consistent policy for communicating information about such testing. We examined whether framing optional NBS alongside mandatory NBS influenced intention to participate in optional NBS.
methodsFor this Internet-administered study, 2,991 adults read a hypothetical vignette in which optional NBS for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) was either presented by itself (in isolation), alongside a description including the total number of mandatory NBS tests ("bundled" mandatory context), or alongside a listing of each mandatory NBS test ("unbundled" mandatory context). We assessed associations with participants' intended participation using ordered logistic regression models, and associations with attitudes towards optional DMD NBS and subjective norms using Analysis of Variance.
resultsParticipants were more likely to choose optional DMD NBS if they also read information about mandatory NBS (either bundled or unbundled) versus when DMD NBS was presented in isolation. Participants who read about optional DMD NBS in isolation also reported such testing to be less important and that they would worry more about the results than those who also saw mandatory NBS information.
conclusionsFuture NBS programs should pay attention to the framing of optional testing communication, as it influences parental behavior. Predictors of NBS uptake will become increasingly important as NBS programs continue expanding.
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.