ReviewEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Parental and public views on genomic newborn screening: a systematic review.
Review 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The potential integration of whole genome sequencing (WGS) into the UK newborn screening programme (NBS) represents a major advancement in population health genomics. Multiple studies have assessed professionals' opinions on the healthcare system's readiness for this change. Parental and public views are under-represented and limited regional and national assessments have been undertaken. This study systematically reviews qualitative literature exploring public and parental views of genomic newborn screening (gNBS) to identify potential barriers and enablers of its uptake. Using thematic synthesis of seventeen studies from five countries, key themes emerged around preconceptions about individual's benefits and costs of engaging and assumptions about the design of gNBS services. Participants generally recognised the benefits of early diagnosis and medical intervention but expressed concerns about psychological impacts, data privacy, and the scope of screened conditions. Views were shaped by limited public understanding of genomics, with misconceptions potentially influencing consent decisions. This research highlights a preference for flexible, tiered screening options and the importance of inclusive, multimodal communication strategies delivered pre- and perinatally by trusted healthcare professionals. Equitable access and robust privacy protections were identified as critical for public trust. These findings underscore the importance of co-designing gNBS implementation with stakeholders to ensure informed, voluntary participation and maximise public health benefits. This systematic review informs policymakers and healthcare providers about public attitudes, which are essential for shaping ethically responsible and socially acceptable genomic screening programmes.
Identifiers
42401744What 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.