ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Healthcare professionals' views on expanding newborn screening with or without genomics in France: Results of the SeDeN-p2 study.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic advances and the rapid, cost-effective development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) have increased interest in expanding newborn screening (NBS) through genomics. The SeDeN-p2 study assessed the acceptability among healthcare professionals in France, of expanding NBS, particularly with genetics as a first-line test, by examining areas of convergence and divergence in their expectations. A national cross-sectional survey was conducted between June and December 2021 via professional networks and learned societies involved in NBS and genetics, in partnership with the French Society of Newborn Screening. The questionnaire comprised 101 closed-ended and 14 open-ended questions. After data cleaning, 1077 responses were analysed. Respondents were mainly paediatricians (43%), gynaecologists or midwives (36%), and medical geneticists or genetic counsellors (17%). Support for the inclusion of treatable childhood-onset conditions was very high, with over 95% endorsing their integration into NBS, although 29% still considered the current NBS programme sufficient. Views varied substantially by specialty, particularly regarding the scope of conditions and the use of NGS. Genetics professionals were more conservative, especially concerning variants with limited actionability, organisational constraints, and interpretive uncertainty, while midwives and gynaecologists were generally more favourable. Convergence was strongest for treatable paediatric conditions and shared ethical concerns, notably data misuse, psychosocial burden, and the child's future autonomy. The need for improved communication with families was widely emphasised. The SeDeN-p2 study shows strong but conditional support among French healthcare professionals for integrating genetics into NBS, providing key insights to inform future policy and practice.
Identifiers
42839023What 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.