ArticlePloS one2026
Parental acceptability of newborn screening expansion in the genomic era: A nationwide French survey informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (SeDeN-p3).
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNewborn screening (NBS) has progressively expanded through technological innovations, from tandem mass spectrometry enabling expanded NBS (eNBS) to the prospect of genomic NBS (gNBS). While these developments promise earlier diagnosis and richer information, they also raise concerns regarding actionability, uncertainty, equity and psychosocial impact. As technological feasibility alone does not ensure public confidence, parental perspectives are central to evaluating future expansions. This study assessed parental views on NBS expansion in France, examining its determinants and whether genomics raises specific concerns.
methodsA nationwide cross-sectional survey (September 2022-February 2023) included 1,640 parents recruited postpartum in maternity wards and through an online quota panel. Acceptability of eNBS and gNBS was assessed alongside intermediate components from the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (affective attitude, perceived effectiveness, ethicality), a technical trade-off scenario, and individual characteristics. Analyses combined descriptive statistics, multivariable regression, and thematic analysis of free-text comments.
resultsSupport was very high for eNBS (93%) and remained high for gNBS (89%), with genetics mainly shifting responses from complete to partial acceptability. Affective attitude and perceived effectiveness were the strongest predictors of both outcomes, while ethical concerns distinguished assured from conditional support. Most parents prioritised minimising uncertain results, whereas a smaller subgroup accepted greater ambiguity. Foreign-born and single parents reported lower levels of complete acceptability, while health-sector workers and parents with rare-disease experience were more supportive. No independent association with the age of the youngest child was observed.
conclusionParental acceptability of eNBS and gNBS is high but nuanced, shaped primarily by anticipated health benefits, emotional orientation and tolerance for uncertainty, with trust and social distance modulating support. As genomic expansion progresses, implementation will require proportionate, culturally adapted information and clear governance, and should be informed by real-world evidence from pilots such as PERIGENOMED.
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.