ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022
Are We Ready for Newborn Genetic Screening? A Cross-Sectional Survey of Healthcare Professionals in Southeast China.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 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
- Who and how we engage: A systemic mapping of stakeholder perspectives on genomic newborn screening.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Next-generation sequencing in newborn screening: Current status, challenges, and future perspectives.Pediatric investigation · 2026Review
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on expanding newborn genomic screening in the emirate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: insights from a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Feasibility, acceptability and clinical outcomes of the BabyScreen+ genomic newborn screening study.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- "Using dried blood spots beyond newborn screening - is Hong Kong ready?": navigating the intersection of innovation readiness, privacy concerns, and Chinese parenting culture.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Australian Public Perspectives on Genomic Newborn Screening: Risks, Benefits, and Preferences for Implementation.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Article
- Genetic counselors' perspectives on genomic screening of apparently healthy newborns in the United States.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
- Genomic newborn screening for rare diseases.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To understand the knowledge, attitude, willingness, and ability of healthcare professionals working in newborn screening (NBS) centers regarding newborn genetic screening (nGS). Methods: The questionnaire consisted of four sections with 27 questions and the data were collected by the WJX platform. All participants accessed the questionnaire by scanning a specific QR code with their mobile phones. Two researchers independently completed the summary and analysis. Results: A total of 258 valid questionnaires were collected from 43 NBS centers in six provinces of southeast China. In total, 209 (81.01%) participants were interested in nGS, and almost all participants (97.67%) thought that nGS was necessary in China. About 89.53% of participants thought that it could be used to effectively expand the diseases that could be screened, but 72.87% also worried about the inability to provide genetic counseling. About 55.34% suggested that nGS and tandem mass spectrometry (TMS) screening could be applied in a unite screening mode. The higher the institution and personal education levels, the higher the interest healthcare professionals displayed toward nGS. However, they also showed greater concern about the inability to provide genetic counseling and ethical issues. If a center had engaged in TMS screening, its staff would have been more likely to believe that nGS had great advantages. In addition, most participants had ethical concerns, such as "the psychological burden caused by carrying information regarding adult morbidity risk." Conclusion: Most participants were interested and considered nGS necessary. The inability to provide genetic counseling may be the primary impediment to clinical practice. Three important influencing factors were level of education, institution level, and engagement in TMS screening.
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.