ArticleBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud2020
Local deliberative approach to the bioethical controversies: An opportunity for the proper implementation of neonatal screening
Article in Biomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud, 2020. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The controversial characteristics of neonatal screening influenced by bioethical considerations make its implementation complex. Colombia is not an exception in this sense and local circumstances complicate the panorama. Objective: To establish how bioethical controversies on neonatal screening are approached at a local level as a basis for deliberating on the must-be of this activity in Colombia. Materials and methods: A survey immersed in an interpretative investigation with descriptive and deliberative components of analysis was applied to approach the values exposed by officials of the Colombian Instituto Nacional de Salud. Results: The compulsory offer of screening by the nation, regardless of its opportunity cost and the consent for the use in research of results and residual samples, were not controversial, but, in contrast, the type of information and the consent to authorize screening did arise controversy. The more experienced officials preferred mandatory screening (17.7 vs. 11.79 years on average, p=0.007). Surprisingly, despite the risk of discrimination, keeping the neonate as the purpose, there was agreement on giving all the information to parents and medical records. Another controversial aspect was the follow-up of cases without hiding their identification where officials with more experience in bioethical aspects preferred the use of codes (4.5 vs. 1.26 years on average, p=0.009). In this context, strategies such as informed dissent, specialized advice or public health programs that appreciate diversity would allow to rescue even seemingly opposite values. Conclusion: A local approach regarding what ought to be in neonatal screening based on a deliberative bioethical perspective allowed to present an implementation proposal for this activity
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.