Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33831694›Full record

SynthesisPublic health2021

Acceptability of childhood screening: a systematic narrative review.

J Carlton, H J Griffiths, A M Horwood, P P Mazzone, R Walker, H J Simonsz

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

J CarltonSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. Electronic address: j.carlton@sheffield.ac.uk.
H J GriffithsAcademic Unit of Ophthalmology and Orthoptics, The Medical School, University of Sheffield, Health Sciences School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK. Electronic address: h.griffiths@sheffield.ac.uk.
A M HorwoodInfant Vision Laboratory, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Infant Vision Laboratory, Earley Gate, Reading, RG6 6AL, UK. Electronic address: a.m.horwood@reading.ac.uk.
P P MazzoneSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. Electronic address: P.P.Mazzone@sms.ed.ac.uk.
R WalkerSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. Electronic address: rachel.walker@sheffield.ac.uk.
H J SimonszDepartment of Ophthalmology, Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, NL-3000CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: simonsz@compuserve.com.
Erasmus MC · NLUniversity of Reading · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA systematic narrative literature review was undertaken to assess the acceptability of childhood screening interventions to identify factors to consider when planning or modifying childhood screening programs to maximize participation and uptake. STUDY

designThis is a systematic narrative literature review.

methodsElectronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO via Ovid, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) to identify primary research studies that assessed screening acceptability. Studies were categorized using an existing theoretical framework of acceptability consisting of seven constructs: affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy. A protocol was developed and registered with PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42018099763)

resultsThe search identified 4529 studies, and 46 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies involved neonatal screening. Programs identified included newborn blood spot screening (n = 22), neonatal hearing screening (n = 13), Duchenne muscular dystrophy screening (n = 4), cystic fibrosis screening (n = 3), screening for congenital heart defects (n = 2), and others (n = 2). Most studies assessed more than one construct of acceptability. The most common constructs identified were affective attitude (how a parent feels about the program) and intervention coherence (parental understanding of the program, and/or the potential consequences of a confirmed diagnosis).

conclusionsThe main acceptability component identified related to parental knowledge and understanding of the screening process, the testing procedure(s), and consent. The emotional impact of childhood screening mostly explored maternal anxiety. Further studies are needed to examine the acceptability of childhood screening across the wider family unit. When planning new (or refining existing) childhood screening programs, it is important to assess acceptability before implementation. This should include assessment of important issues such as information needs, timing of information, and when and where the screening should occur.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningChildHumansInfantInfant, NewbornNeonatal ScreeningParentsPatient Acceptance of Health CareAcceptabilityChildhoodInfantScreening

Identifiers

PMID33831694
PMCPMC8128098
OpenAlexW3142804242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.