ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Parental reactions to and preferences for genomic newborn screening in Germany: findings from a scenario-based survey experiment.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Parental perspectives are central in ongoing debates about genomic newborn screening (gNBS). This study examined (expecting) parents' interest in gNBS in Germany. We hypothesized that condition characteristics (actionability, genetic penetrance) and personal factors (e.g., attitudes towards gNBS, anticipated coping, risk perception) predict parental interest in gNBS for their child. We also investigated determinants of risk perception. In an online survey (N = 556; 60% women; M age=35 years), participants evaluated nine hypothetical case-scenarios that systematically varied penetrance and actionability. Data were analyzed using multilevel models, latent profile analysis and descriptive statistics. Overall, (expecting) parents showed a strong demand for information, driven more by perceived benefits than concerns. Two profiles emerged: one highly open and one seeking information more selectively. Across scenarios, higher interest in potential gNBS findings was associated with high actionability and moderate penetrance (50-74%) of possible target conditions, prior experience with chronic conditions, greater anticipated coping with test results, higher perceived probability of condition development, and more positive than negative attitudes toward gNBS. Perceived probability (subjective risk) predicted interest better than objective risk (penetrance), but was itself well explained by penetrance. Diagnostic concern (worry about disease manifestation) was consistently higher than perceived probability across penetrance levels and more pronounced in women. Implications include avoiding the reporting of low-penetrance findings due to disproportionate diagnostic concern and providing decision aids to support informed parental decision-making.
Identifiers
42850387What 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.