ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2024
Views of children and young adults about Whole Genome Sequencing in newborn screening: a qualitative study.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parental and public views on genomic newborn screening: a systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Australian parents' perspectives on extended genomic screening: what information to return and when?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Genomic Newborn Screening: Verdict From an Australian Citizens' Jury.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Article
- Public and parent perspectives on genomic sequencing in newborn screening: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Young adult perspectives regarding receiving medically actionable gene testing results for newborns: A qualitative investigation.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Genomic technologies identify milder presentations of Mendelian disease.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) in newborn screening is ethically complex. Parents will provide proxy consent for initial participation and 16-year-olds will be approached to consent to continued storage of their genome. We explored the views of 11-25-year-olds to understand the information needs of this age group and the views of the next generation of parents. This two-phase UK study involved: a secondary analysis of focus groups with young adults and a diary and focus group study with children with CF. Diaries were analysed using content analysis, focus group data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Diaries illustrated how children formed genomic knowledge and their questions. Participants broadly supported WGS-NBS based on a belief that all results improve health. Pre-study knowledge was sometimes correct, other-times it drew on vicarious ideas that could cause distress. Children showed an ability to appreciate the complexity of deciding which results should be returned. Focus groups: All participants counterbalanced the benefits and risks of WGS-NBS. Children demonstrated innate trust in doctors, whereas young adults wanted parent-doctor collaboration in decision-making. Young adults conditionally supported WGS-NBS depending on treatability, severity, onset and consent. Children wanted parents to be informed of a broader range of results, but valued informed choice too. More research is needed to understand healthy children's views. Although small samples, this work provides insight into the understanding and concerns of young adults and children which could help when trying to discuss this topic with them.
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.