Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42493629›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

Scaling up genomic newborn screening: implementation lessons from the BabyScreen+ study.

Nathasha Kugenthiran, Erin Tutty, Anaita Kanga-Parabia, Jade Caruana, Katrina Scarff, Nitzan Lang, Lilian Downie, Sebastian Lunke, Alison D Archibald, 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.

Nathasha KugenthiranUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-3575-4347
Erin TuttyUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Anaita Kanga-ParabiaUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4656-9246
Jade CaruanaMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0335-6224
Katrina ScarffVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5195-9727
Nitzan LangVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Lilian DownieUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3914-5592
Sebastian LunkeUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7168-0723
Alison D ArchibaldUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Zornitza Stark *University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. zornitza.stark@vcgs.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8640-1371
Stephanie Best *University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1107-8976

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interest in the potential of population-based genomic sequencing is growing. However, integrating a large-scale screening program into an already complex healthcare system is challenging. The implementation of gNBS needs a thorough understanding of the process. The purpose of this study is to investigate how gNBS can be integrated into the Australian health system and delivered at scale. Embedded within the BabyScreen+ study, we utilised a research design informed by process mapping and phenomenology. Fifty-one semi-structured interviews with parents (n = 33), healthcare providers (n = 15), and BabyScreen+ study team members (n = 8) were conducted. Additionally, we analysed the operational team meeting minutes. A baseline process map, developed in consultation with team members, consisted of six stages: 1. Raising awareness of the screening program; 2. Offer; 3. Participant enrolment and consent; 4. Sample collection; 5. Testing; and 6. Result disclosure and management. We recorded changes made over the study period to inform the post-implementation process map. Most changes occurred at stages: 1. Raising awareness, 4. Sample collection and 5. Testing. Lastly, a process map to inform the scale up of screening, was developed. Four key aspects of the gNBS process needing modification are: (1) growing awareness of screening amongst the public and HCPs; (2) building flexibility and accessibility into the consent process; (3) developing automation capabilities and infrastructure for large-scale sequencing and analysis, and (4) dedicated referral processes for infants who receive high-chance results. These findings demonstrate key system-level considerations and provide a foundation for implementing genomic newborn screening at scale within existing healthcare systems.

Identifiers

PMID42493629

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.