ArticleJournal of community genetics2016
Biobank participant support of newborn screening for disorders with variable treatment and intervention options.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to better understand biobank participant opinions of the benefits of newborn screening (NBS) for certain disorder types and how terminology used in NBS discourse might impact stakeholder opinion. We conducted a between-subjects randomized survey of 5840 members of the Northwestern University Biobank. The survey contained 12 scenarios, each describing a disorder and its treatment. For each scenario, we varied the terminology used to describe treatment options. One survey version used the term intervention and the other treatment. The outcome measured for each scenario was perceived benefit (for the infant) and importance of testing (for participants). Comparisons were made between participants and between scenarios. Ratings of benefit and importance were not influenced by the use of the term intervention versus treatment within scenarios. Nuances existed in ratings of benefit to the infant and importance to participants amongst scenarios. Participants were most likely to perceive benefit and importance in screening for a disorder if treatment/intervention offered a high chance of improved outcomes. While participants perceived benefit to the infant and importance to themselves in screening for most disorders, nuances in inter-scenario ratings suggest participants weighed availability and type of treatment/intervention in consideration of the benefits of NBS.
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.