ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
"Jumping too far ahead": Australian healthcare professional, scientist, and policy maker perspectives on using genomics in newborn screening.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Newborn Screening: Equity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Families in the Context of Emerging Genomics.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The future use of genomics in Australia's newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) program is likely to be associated with both positive and negative impacts. Before adopting this technology, it is important to understand the views of all stakeholders, including scientists, health care professionals (HCPs) and policy-makers involved in delivering the program. Semi-structured interviews or small group discussions were undertaken with 19 HCPs or scientists, and 16 policy-makers. Responses were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Participants acknowledged the potential of genomics in NBS to improve early detection, diagnosis, and treatment. However, they more often highlighted potential risks of genomics in NBS, and the broader technical and implementation challenges to the health system. Perspectives varied on whether genomic NBS should align with Australia's current NBS paradigm, focusing on severe, treatable, early-onset conditions, or whether wider potential uses of genomic NBS data (such as later clinical uses) should drive a 'paradigm shift' in policy that values benefits beyond newborn screening. Respondents reported that effective implementation of genomic NBS will require adequate health system readiness, which will require national program coordination, adequate consent, an agreed ethical approach to reporting uncertain or non-actionable results, enhanced workforce capacity, enhanced laboratory and data infrastructure, equitable access to downstream health services, and ethically and legally agreed uses of the genomic data. Findings offer insights for Australia and other countries considering the use of genomics in NBS programs.
Identifiers
41087733What 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.