Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42365129›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

Australian parents' perspectives on extended genomic screening: what information to return and when?

Fiona Lynch, Christopher Gyngell, Stephanie Best, Clara Gaff, Lilian Downie, Alison Archibald, Ilias Goranitis, Julian Savulescu, Sebastian Lunke, Zornitza Stark and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Fiona LynchMurdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6386-6739
Christopher GyngellMurdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1340-3947
Stephanie BestThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Clara GaffThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Lilian DownieMurdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3914-5592
Alison ArchibaldMurdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4496-8262
Ilias GoranitisThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7946-8324
Julian SavulescuMurdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Sebastian LunkeMurdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7168-0723
Zornitza StarkMurdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8640-1371
Danya F VearsMurdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Parkville, VIC, Australia. danya.vears@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6290-545X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42365129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.