Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40377246›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025

Tension between the need for certainty and numerous uncertainties-A focus group study on various perspectives on a potential genomic newborn screening program in Germany.

Elena Sophia Doll, Julia Mahal, Karla Alex, Seraina Petra Lerch, Stefan Kölker, Christian P Schaaf, Eva C Winkler, Beate Ditzen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Elena Sophia DollRuprecht-Karls University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0004-5118-6404
Julia MahalRuprecht-Karls University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0458-4635
Karla AlexNational Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), NCT Heidelberg, a Partnership between DKFZ and Heidelberg University Hospital, Section Translational Medical Ethics, Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7065-9201
Seraina Petra LerchRuprecht-Karls University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4439-5537
Stefan KölkerHeidelberg University, Medical Faculty, Center for Child and Adolescent Medicine, Division of Child Neurology and Metabolic Medicine, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5188-9477
Christian P SchaafInstitute of Human Genetics, Heidelberg University, Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4154-5459
Eva C WinklerNational Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), NCT Heidelberg, a Partnership between DKFZ and Heidelberg University Hospital, Section Translational Medical Ethics, Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Faculty Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7460-0154
Beate DitzenRuprecht-Karls University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5853-4572

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advancement of genome sequencing technology and its potential application in newborn screening is being discussed in various countries. Genomic newborn screening (gNBS) can provide parents with information about their child's genetic susceptibility for known disorders. However, it also presents ethical and psychosocial challenges. This study was carried out with a view toward the possible introduction of gNBS in Germany. Due to the existing challenges, it is crucial to understand different perspectives of relevant groups in Germany before implementing gNBS. Four online focus groups were conducted with parents, patient representatives, and healthcare professionals to explore perceived opportunities and challenges, as well as needs regarding a potential gNBS program. Discussions with altogether 24 participants were semi-structured using a pre-defined interview guide. Sessions were audio-visually recorded and transcripts were analyzed using a structuring qualitative content analysis combining both deductive and inductive methods. Participants expressed positive views about gNBS but also reservations about a gNBS program and posed requirements for operating conditions. One salient theme that emerged was hope for certainty through gNBS in the face of numerous uncertainties. The study complements the perspective of patient representatives, providing further insight into the subject matter. This is a valuable contribution as they possess a comprehensive understanding of the medical, psychological, and ethical considerations involved. Patient representatives placed particular emphasis on the advantages of avoiding a diagnostic odyssey and the significance of support systems. The results provide first insights into different views on gNBS in Germany. These views can inform the potential preparation of a gNBS program in Germany, particularly with regard to information and consent requirements. Implications for practice, such as informing and educating parents about gNBS during pregnancy, can be derived from the study.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingNeonatal ScreeningAdultFemaleFocus GroupsGermanyHumansInfant, NewbornMaleParentsUncertaintyethicsgenomic newborn screeningparentspopulation screeningpredictive genetic testingpsychosocial

Identifiers

PMID40377246
PMCPMC12083059

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.