Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42401744›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

Parental and public views on genomic newborn screening: a systematic review.

Rachael Sweetland, Fiona Ulph

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

Rachael SweetlandManchester Academy for Healthcare Scientist Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Fiona UlphManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Mancheste, Manchester, UK. fiona.ulph@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3590-6542

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

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.