Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42477407›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

Who and how we engage: A systemic mapping of stakeholder perspectives on genomic newborn screening.

Amicia Phillips, Kate Lyle, Dahria Kuyser, Anneke Lucassen, Caroline F Wright, Leigh Jackson

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

6 authors.

Amicia PhillipsDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. a.m.phillips@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4467-685X
Kate LyleCentre for Human Genetics, Medical Sciences division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9265-7648
Dahria KuyserCentre for Human Genetics, Medical Sciences division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anneke LucassenCentre for Human Genetics, Medical Sciences division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3324-4338
Caroline F WrightDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2958-5076
Leigh JacksonDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0260-5295

Funding

RCUK | Medical Research Council (MRC) MR/X021351/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of genomic sequencing in newborn screening is increasingly being piloted through research programmes worldwide. In parallel, an expanding body of attitudinal studies has examined stakeholder views as jurisdictions consider whether and how to implement genomic newborn screening (gNBS). To understand what perspectives have been represented thus far in stakeholder research and how those perspectives have been shaped by study design, we conducted a systemic mapping of 41 attitudinal studies about gNBS. Studies were conducted in eight countries, with more than half linked to ongoing pilot programmes. We observed a limited range of perspectives, with mothers and people with prior experience of a genetic condition in the family relatively frequently represented. As gNBS would primarily involve testing newborns who are not affected by genetic conditions, additional perspectives are needed. Studies varied considerably in how gNBS was described to participants. The issues most frequently explored concerned acceptability (n = 31), consent (n = 24), scope of screening (n = 26), psychosocial implications (n = 25), and data storage and secondary use (n = 22), whereas healthcare system readiness (n = 13) and equity considerations (n = 11) received comparatively less attention. Many studies left unaddressed participants' underlying assumptions about the predictive certainty of genomic findings, highlighting a need to situate gNBS within the realities of genomic uncertainty. At a time when policymakers are actively considering gNBS, this mapping highlights the need for careful interpretation of existing findings and identifies research priorities, particularly in relation to understanding gNBS as a public health programme.

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.