Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35361157›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2022

Pain points in parents' interactions with newborn screening systems: a qualitative study.

Mike Conway, Truc Thuy Vuong, Kim Hart, Andreas Rohrwasser, Karen Eilbeck

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Diagnostic experiences of Duchenne families and their preferences for newborn screening: A mixed-methods study.American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics · 2022
    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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mike ConwaySchool of Computing and Information Systems , University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia. mike.conway@unimelb.edu.au.
Truc Thuy VuongCell, Molecular, and Cancer Biology Graduate Program and Medical Sciences Graduate Program, Indiana University, School of Medicine, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
Kim HartUtah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Andreas RohrwasserUtah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Karen EilbeckDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA. keilbeck@genetics.utah.edu.
Utah Department of Health · USIndiana University School of MedicineUniversity of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

Utah Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR002538 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI HESS, RACHEL, MAJERSIK, JENNIFER JUHL · 2018 to 2022
$26.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002538
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

objectivesThis study aims to explore and elucidate parents' experience of newborn screening [NBS], with the overarching goal of identifying desiderata for the development of informatics-based educational and health management resources.

methodsWe conducted four focus groups and four one-on-one qualitative interviews with a total of 35 participants between March and September 2020. Participants were grouped into three types: parents who had received true positive newborn screening results; parents who had received false positive results; and soon-to-be parents who had no direct experience of the screening process. Interview data were subjected to analysis using an inductive, constant comparison approach.

resultsResults are divided into five sections: (1) experiences related to the process of receiving NBS results and prior knowledge of the NBS program; (2) approaches to the management of a child's medical data; (3) sources of additional informational and emotional support; (4) barriers faced by parents navigating the health system; and (5) recommendations and suggestions for new parents experiencing the NBS process.

conclusionOur analysis revealed a wide range of experiences of, and attitudes towards the newborn screening program and the wider newborn screening system. While parents' view of the screening process was - on the whole - positive, some participants reported experiencing substantial frustration, particularly related to how results are initially communicated and difficulties in accessing reliable, timely information. This frustration with current information management and education resources indicates a role for informatics-based approaches in addressing parents' information needs.

Indexed as

Neonatal ScreeningParentsChildFocus GroupsHumansInfant, NewbornPainQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID35361157
PMCPMC8967687
OpenAlexW4220809511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.