Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42850387›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

Parental reactions to and preferences for genomic newborn screening in Germany: findings from a scenario-based survey experiment.

Elena Sophia Doll, Julia Mahal, Karla Alex, Carlotta Julia Mayer, Ulrike Mütze, Heiko Brennenstuhl, Ralf Müller-Terpitz, Stefan Kölker, Christian P Schaaf, Eva C Winkler and 2 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

12 authors.

Elena Sophia DollHeidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. elenasophia.doll@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5118-6404
Julia MahalHeidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Karla AlexHeidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Medical and Data Ethics, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7065-9201
Carlotta Julia MayerLaboratory for Clinical Neuropsychology, Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ulrike MützeDivision of Child Neurology and Metabolic Medicine, Medical Faculty, Center for Child and Adolescent Medicine, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4251-7257
Heiko BrennenstuhlInstitute of Human Genetics, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6909-0003
Ralf Müller-TerpitzFaculty of Law, Public Law, Law of Economic Regulation and Media, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Stefan KölkerDivision of Child Neurology and Metabolic Medicine, Medical Faculty, Center for Child and Adolescent Medicine, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christian P SchaafInstitute of Human Genetics, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2148-7490
Eva C WinklerHeidelberg University, Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Medical and Data Ethics, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7460-0154
Hadley Stevens Smith *PRecisiOn Medicine Translational Research (PROMoTeR) Center, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Beate Ditzen *Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. b.ditzen@psychologie.uzh.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5853-4572

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

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.