Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38535122›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2024

Psychosocial Impact of a True-Positive, False-Positive, or Inconclusive Newborn Bloodspot Screening Result: A Questionnaire Study among Parents.

Lieke M van den Heuvel, Sylvia M van der Pal, Rendelien K Verschoof-Puite, Jasmijn E Klapwijk, Ellen Elsinghorst, Eugènie Dekkers, Catharina P B van der Ploeg, Lidewij Henneman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of neonatal screening, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lieke M van den HeuvelDepartment of Human Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4248-320X
Sylvia M van der PalDepartment of Child Health, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, 2333 BE Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9706-9298
Rendelien K Verschoof-PuiteDepartment for Vaccine Supply and Prevention Programmes, RIVM Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Jasmijn E KlapwijkDepartment of Human Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6775-6561
Ellen ElsinghorstCentre for Population Screening, RIVM Dutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Eugènie DekkersCentre for Population Screening, RIVM Dutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Catharina P B van der PloegDepartment of Child Health, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, 2333 BE Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5393-8938
Lidewij HennemanDepartment of Human Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3531-0597
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLNetherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research · NL

Funding

Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development 543002006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Expansion of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) can increase health gain for more children but also increases the number of false-positive and uncertain results. The impact of abnormal and inconclusive NBS results on parental well-being and healthcare utilization was investigated. A questionnaire was sent to Dutch parents receiving an abnormal or inconclusive NBS result five weeks (T1) and four months (T2) post-NBS and compared to parents with a normal result (controls). In total, 35 true-positive (TP), 20 false-positive (FP), and 57 inconclusive (IC) participants and 268 controls filled out T1; 19 TP, 14 FP, 27 IC, and 116 controls filled out T2. Participants showed positive attitudes towards NBS. FP participants more often considered NBS less reliable. TP and FP participants experienced more negative emotions regarding the test result compared to controls at both T1 and T2, and IC only at T1. Parent-reported child vulnerability and perceptions of the newborn's health status and of parenthood showed no differences. TP and FP participants reported more healthcare utilization at T1, and mainly TP at T2. TP and IC participants showed more emergency department visits at T1. The findings can be used to improve NBS programs and optimize support for families with various NBS results.

Indexed as

abnormal resultchild vulnerabilityinconclusive resultnewborn screeningparental perceptionspsychosocial impactquestionnaire study

Identifiers

PMID38535122
PMCPMC10971090
OpenAlexW4392457718

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.