ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Parental experiences of receiving genomic newborn screening results: findings from the BabyScreen+ study.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. 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.
- Second-Tier Whole Exome Sequencing Following Abnormal Newborn Screening: Diagnostic Yield, Secondary Findings, and Carrier Burden in a Taiwanese Neonatal Cohort.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic newborn screening (gNBS) provides the potential to offer significant health benefits. However, more evidence, including psychosocial impacts on parents, is needed before gNBS is ready for population-level implementation. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore parental experiences of receiving gNBS results from a prospective study, BabyScreen+. BabyScreen+ screened 1000 newborns for >600 genetic conditions that were early-onset, severe, and had management options available (prevention, surveillance or treatment). We interviewed parents three months after receiving their result. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, guided by Interpretive Description. Twenty-seven parents were interviewed, including nine who received a 'high chance' result for their newborn. Waiting for gNBS results was not unduly anxiety provoking. Low chance results provided psychosocial benefits including peace-of-mind and empowerment. Receiving a high chance result was unexpected and shocking, especially if the result was for a condition with significant treatment recommendations (e.g., transplantation). Psychosocial adaption to the subsequent diagnosis was an evolving process; access to genetic counselling, high-quality information and prompt referrals to specialists increased confidence in managing the condition and facilitated adaptation. All parents valued the high chance gNBS result given its clinical utility. The study provides support for gNBS by highlighting that it can provide valuable health information with minimal harms. Findings can be used to inform the implementation of population-scale gNBS.
Identifiers
41735668What 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.