ArticleBMJ open2020
Qualitative exploration of health professionals' experiences of communicating positive newborn bloodspot screening results for nine conditions in England.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preferences, attitudes and views regarding genetic newborn screening (gNBS) for rare diseases: a systematic review of the literature and synthesis from 2009 to 2022.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Parental experience and information needs following a positive newborn screening test-based neonatal diagnosis of a chronic condition: an integrative review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Newborn Screening for Metachromatic Leukodystrophy: A Systematic Literature Review.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Review
- Communication of an Abnormal Metabolic Newborn Screening Result in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Exploratory Study of the General Practitioner's Perspective.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Article
- Development of an Online Scenario-Based Tool to Enable Research Participation and Public Engagement in Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Current Status of Newborn Bloodspot Screening Worldwide 2024: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Activities (2020-2023).International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Review
- Psychosocial Impact of False-Positive Newborn Screening Results: A Scoping Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Stakeholder Views of the Proposed Introduction of Next Generation Sequencing into the Cystic Fibrosis Screening Protocol in England.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Article
- Transforming the nutrition care model for infants with cystic fibrosis: A qualitative study of clinicians' perspectives.Pediatric pulmonology · 2023Article
- Communication of an Abnormal Metabolic New-Born Screening Result in The Netherlands: The Parental Perspective.Nutrients · 2022Article
- Co-designing Improved Communication of Newborn Bloodspot Screening Results to Parents: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2022Article
- Delivering Positive Newborn Screening Results: Cost Analysis of Existing Practice versus Innovative, Co-Designed Strategies from the ReSPoND Study.International journal of neonatal screening · 2022Article
- Processing of Positive Newborn Screening Results for Congenital Hypothyroidism: A Qualitative Exploration of Current Practice in England.International journal of neonatal screening · 2021Article
- Process evaluation of co-designed interventions to improve communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Processing of positive newborn screening results: a qualitative exploration of current practice in England.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Article
- Psychological Impact of NBS for CF.International journal of neonatal screening · 2020Review
- Processing Newborn Bloodspot Screening Results for CF.International journal of neonatal screening · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore health professionals' experiences of communicating positive newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) results, highlight differences, share good practice and make recommendations for future research.
designQualitative exploratory design was employed using semi-structured interviews
settingThree National Health Service provider organisations in England
participantsSeventeen health professionals involved in communicating positive newborn bloodspot screening results to parents for all nine conditions currently included in the newborn bloodspot screening programme in England.
resultsFindings indicated variation in approaches to communicating positive newborn bloodspot screening results to parents, largely influenced by resources available and the lack of clear guidance. Health professionals emphasised the importance of communicating results to families in a way that is sensitive to their needs. However, many challenges hindered communication including logistical considerations; difficulty contacting the family and other health professionals; language barriers; parental reactions; resource considerations; lack of training; and insufficient time.
conclusionHealth professionals invest a lot of time and energy trying to ensure communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results to families is done well. However, there continues to be great variation in the way these results are communicated to parents and this is largely influenced by resources available but also the lack of concrete guidance. How best to support health professionals undertaking this challenging and emotive task requires further exploration. We recommend evaluation of a more cohesive approach that meets the needs of parents and staff while being sensitive to the subtleties of each condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15330120.
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.