ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2025
Public preferences for the value and implementation of genomic newborn screening: Insights from two discrete choice experiments in Australia.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parental reactions to and preferences for genomic newborn screening in Germany: findings from a scenario-based survey experiment.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Optimizing Informed Consent for Australian Newborn Bloodspot Screening and Research: Consensus Workshop Insights and Recommendations.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
- Public Preferences and Willingness to Pay for a Multidisciplinary Colorectal and Pelvic Reconstruction Service.The patient · 2026Article
- Health economic evaluations of genomic newborn screening: Approaches by studies within the international consortium on newborn sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Parental experiences of receiving genomic newborn screening results: findings from the BabyScreen+ study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Next-generation sequencing in newborn screening: Current status, challenges, and future perspectives.Pediatric investigation · 2026Review
- What Is at Stake in Genetic Newborn Screening for Rare Diseases? An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Parents' and Expectant Parents' Concerns in the Screen4Care Project.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- Article
- Feasibility, acceptability and clinical outcomes of the BabyScreen+ genomic newborn screening study.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Determining the value of genomics in healthcare.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- Evidence is building for genomic newborn screening.Nature medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integrating genomic sequencing into newborn screening (NBS) has transformative potential for the identification and management of genetic conditions. Using discrete choice experiment surveys, we elicited the preferences, values, and priorities of 2,509 members of the Australian public about the value (n = 1,504) and implementation (n = 1,005) of genomic NBS (gNBS). The Australian public demonstrated positive preference for gNBS, with 90% of respondents indicating an interest in gNBS results. Cost of screening was the most important attribute in people's decision about uptake of gNBS. Enabling diagnosis in more newborns increases the utility of gNBS. To enable these diagnoses, the public is willing to accept less restrictive models of gNBS in terms of the types of conditions included. However, there is disutility associated with including conditions that have less effective (or no) treatments available and including conditions with reduced penetrance. A gNBS program yielding 10-50 additional diagnoses per 1,000 newborns screened relative to standard NBS was valued by the Australian public at AU$4,600-$5,700 (US$2,990-$3,700) per newborn screened. Most participants (65%) preferred an opt-in type of consent and expressed a preference to receive high-chance results in person from a genetics professional, although telehealth and phone options were acceptable. Our findings should inform economic evaluation and future implementation for gNBS in the Australian and other healthcare systems.
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.