Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40441144›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2025

Public preferences for the value and implementation of genomic newborn screening: Insights from two discrete choice experiments in Australia.

Riccarda Peters, Stephanie Best, Fiona Lynch, Danya F Vears, Lilian Downie, Alison D Archibald, Sebastian Lunke, Zornitza Stark, Ilias Goranitis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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.

Riccarda PetersEconomics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia.
Stephanie BestAustralian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia; Melbourne School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia.
Fiona LynchBiomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia; Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia.
Danya F VearsBiomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Lilian DownieDepartment of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Alison D ArchibaldAustralian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; Genomics in Society, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Sebastian LunkeVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia.
Zornitza StarkAustralian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia. Electronic address: zornitza.stark@vcgs.org.au.
Ilias GoranitisEconomics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia; Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia. Electronic address: ilias.goranitis@unimelb.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Choice BehaviorGenetic TestingGenomicsNeonatal ScreeningPublic OpinionAdultAustraliaFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesDCEdiscrete choice experimentgenomic newborn screeninggenomic sequencinghealth economicsnewborn screeningpublic viewssocietal preferences

Identifiers

PMID40441144
PMCPMC12256898

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.