Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40053726›Full record

ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2025

Development of an Online Scenario-Based Tool to Enable Research Participation and Public Engagement in Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening: Mixed Methods Study.

Louise Moody, Samantha Clarke, Matt Compton, Rachael Hughson-Gill, Felicity Boardman, Corinna Clark, Pru Holder, James R Bonham, Jane Chudleigh

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06299566 (Exploring Perceptions on the Proposed Cystic Fibrosis Screening Protocol Incorporating Next Generation Sequencing), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06299566 completednot on this map

Exploring Perceptions on the Proposed Cystic Fibrosis Screening Protocol Incorporating Next Generation Sequencing

TypeobservationalSponsorKing's College LondonRan2022 to 2023Enrolled150ConditionsCystic Fibrosis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Louise MoodyCentre for Arts, Memory and Communities, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2326-4124
Samantha ClarkeCentre for Arts, Memory and Communities, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5565-7200
Matt ComptonCentre for Arts, Memory and Communities, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3090-0583
Rachael Hughson-GillCentre for Arts, Memory and Communities, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0502-3661
Felicity BoardmanWarwick Medical School, Warwick University, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3268-6276
Corinna ClarkWarwick Medical School, Warwick University, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1077-9383
Pru HolderFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1036-978X
James R BonhamPharmacy, Diagnostics and Genetics, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8161-9021
Jane Chudleigh *Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7334-8708

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNewborn screening aims to identify babies affected by rare but serious genetic conditions. As technology advances, there is the potential to expand the newborn screening program following evaluation of the likely benefits and drawbacks. To inform these decisions, it is important to consider the family experience of screening and the views of the public. Engaging in public dialogue can be difficult. The conditions, screening processes, and associated moral and ethical considerations are complex.

objectiveThis study aims to develop a stand-alone online resource to enable a range of stakeholders to understand whether and how next-generation sequencing should be incorporated into the CF screening algorithm.

methodsAround 4 development workshops with policymakers, parents, and other stakeholders informed the design of an interactive activity, including the structure, content, and questions posed. Stakeholders were recruited to take part in the development workshops via purposeful and snowball sampling methods to achieve a diversity of views across roles and organizations, with email invitations sent to representative individuals with lived, clinical, and academic experience related to CF and screening. Ten stakeholders informed the development process including those with lived experience of CF (2/10, 20%), clinicians (2/10, 20%), and representatives from relevant government, charity, and research organizations (6/10, 60%). Vignettes constructed using interview data and translated into scripts were recorded to provide short films to represent and provoke consideration of families' experiences. Participants were recruited (n=6, adults older than 18 years) to test the resulting resource. Study advertisements were circulated via physical posters and digital newsletters to recruit participants who self-identified as having a reading difficulty or having English as a second language.

resultsAn open access online resource, "Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening: You Decide," was developed and usability and acceptability tested to provide the "user" (eg, a parent, the general public, or a health care professional) with an interactive scenario-based presentation of the potential outcomes of extended genetic testing, allowing them to visualize the impact on families. This included a learning workbook that explains key concepts and processes. The resulting tool facilitates public engagement with and understanding of complex genetic and screening concepts.

conclusionsOnline resources such as the one developed during this work have the potential to help people form considered views and facilitate access to the perspectives of parents and the wider public on genetic testing. These may be otherwise difficult to obtain but are of importance to health care professionals and policymakers.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06299566; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06299566.

Indexed as

cystic fibrosisdecision-makingengagementextended genetic testingnext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID40053726
PMCPMC11926439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.