ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Australian parents' perspectives on extended genomic screening: what information to return and when?
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. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic newborn screening (gNBS) has the potential to generate information that remains relevant across the lifespan, yet little is known about how families who have directly experienced gNBS, understand its long-term role and value. This study analysed the results of eight focus groups with 32 parents whose children had received findings from gNBS (through the BabyScreen+ study, a population-based Australian gNBS pilot programme), to explore how they conceptualise the use of genomic information beyond infancy (which we refer to as extended genomic sequencing, or eGS). Parents described a complex interplay of factors including treatability, severity, certainty, and personal capacity to manage information that shaped their desire to receive results. Using the Health Belief Model as a lens, we show how parental reflections mapped to constructs such as perceived benefits, barriers, severity, susceptibility, self-efficacy, and cues to action. However, parents' reasoning was dynamic rather than static, illustrating how shifts in clinical options or family circumstances influence decision making over time. Overall, our findings demonstrate that families view gNBS data as a potential lifetime resource and support the need for flexible consent pathways, ongoing counselling, and governance frameworks that anticipate both the benefits and burdens of genomic information. This work offers timely insights to inform ethical implementation of eGS in Australia and contributes to international discussions about integrating genomic sequencing into population-level screening.
Identifiers
42365129What 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.