Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35896023›Full record

ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2022

Co-designing Improved Communication of Newborn Bloodspot Screening Results to Parents: Mixed Methods Study.

Jane Chudleigh, Lynette Shakespeare, Pru Holder, Holly Chinnery, Gemma Hack, Tanya Gill, Rachel Gould, Kevin W Southern, Ellinor K Olander, Stephen Morris and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 2022. 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
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Public involvement in chronic respiratory diseases research: A qualitative study of patients', carers' and citizens' perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Newborn Screening in a Pandemic-Lessons Learned.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023
    Review
  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

13 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Jane ChudleighCicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7334-8708
Lynette ShakespearePharmacy, Diagnostics and Genetics, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9203-8169
Pru HolderCicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1036-978X
Holly ChinneryFaculty of Sports, Health and Applied Science, St Mary's University, Twickenham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3454-1505
Gemma HackEvelina London Children's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0620-5480
Tanya GillEvelina London Children's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8311-6521
Rachel GouldInherited Metabolic Diseases and Newborn Screening, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9014-2103
Kevin W SouthernDepartment of Women's & Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6516-9083
Ellinor K OlanderSchool of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7792-9895
Stephen MorrisDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5828-3563
James R BonhamPharmacy, Diagnostics and Genetics, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8161-9021
Alan SimpsonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3286-9846
Louise MoodyCentre for Arts, Memory and Communities, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2326-4124
King's College London · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBSheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBBirmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust · GBCity, University of London · GBCoventry University · GBSt Mary's University Twickenham London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEach year in England, almost 10,000 parents are informed of their child's positive newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) results. This occurs approximately 2 to 8 weeks after birth depending on the condition. Communication of positive NBS results is a subtle and skillful task, demanding thought, preparation, and evidence to minimize potentially harmful negative sequelae. Evidence of variability in the content and the way the result is currently communicated has the potential to lead to increased parental anxiety and distress.

objectiveThis study focused on the development of co-designed interventions to improve the experiences of parents receiving positive NBS results for their children and enhance communication between health care professionals and parents.

methodsAn experience-based co-design approach was used to explore experiences and co-design solutions with 17 health professionals employed in 3 National Health Service Trusts in England and 21 parents (13/21, 62% mothers and 8/21, 38% fathers) of 14 children recruited from the same 3 National Health Service Trusts. Experiences with existing services were gathered via semistructured interviews with health professionals. Filmed narrative interviews with parents were developed into a composite film. The co-design process identified priorities for improving communication of positive NBS results through separate parent and health professional feedback events followed by joint feedback events. In total, 4 interventions were then co-designed between the participants through a web-based platform.

resultsParents and health professionals provided positive feedback regarding the process of gathering experiences and identifying priorities. Themes identified from the parent interviews included impact of initial communication, parental reactions, attending the first clinic appointment, impact of health professionals' communication strategies and skills, impact of diagnosis on family and friends, improvements to the communication of positive NBS results, and parents' views on NBS. Themes identified from the health professional interviews included communication between health professionals, process of communicating with the family, parent- and family-centered care, and availability of resources and challenges to effective communication. In response to these themes, 4 interventions were co-designed: changes to the NBS card; standardized laboratory proformas; standardized communication checklists; and an email or letter for providing reliable, up-to-date, condition-specific information for parents following the communication of positive NBS results.

conclusionsParents and health professionals were able to successfully work together to identify priorities and develop co-designed interventions to improve communication of positive NBS results to parents. The resulting co-designed interventions address communication at different stages of the communication pathway to improve the experiences of parents receiving positive NBS results for their children. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s40814-019-0487-5.

Indexed as

experience-based co-designhealth communicationneonatal screeningparticipatory research

Identifiers

PMID35896023
PMCPMC9377474
OpenAlexW4285362863

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.