Literature DB >> 15860056

Informed choice and public health screening for children: the case of blood spot screening.

Katrina M Hargreaves1, Ruth J Stewart, Sandy R Oliver.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine parents' and health professionals' views on informed choice in newborn blood spot screening, and assess information and communication needs. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A qualitative study involving semi-structured telephone interviews and focus groups with 47 parents of children who were either found to be affected or unaffected by the screened conditions, and 35 health professionals with differing roles in newborn blood spot screening programmes across the UK. RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS: Parents and health professionals recognize a tension between informed choice in newborn blood spot screening and public health screening for children. Some propose resolving this tension with more information and better communication, and some with rigorous dissent procedures. This paper argues that neither extensive parent information, nor a signed dissent model adequately address this tension. Instead, clear, brief and accurate parent information and effective communication between health professionals and parents, which take into account parents' information needs, are required, if informed choice and public health screening for children are to coexist successfully.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15860056      PMCID: PMC5060287          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00324.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  14 in total

Review 1.  Antenatal and neonatal haemoglobinopathy screening in the UK: review and economic analysis.

Authors:  D Zeuner; A E Ades; J Karnon; J Brown; C Dezateux; E N Anionwu
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?

Authors:  A E Raffle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  A measure of informed choice.

Authors:  T M Marteau; E Dormandy; S Michie
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Should parental refusals of newborn screening be respected?

Authors:  Ainsley Newson
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 5.  Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: cost, yield and outcome.

Authors:  R J Pollitt; A Green; C J McCabe; A Booth; N J Cooper; J V Leonard; J Nicholl; P Nicholson; J R Tunaley; N K Virdi
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.014

6.  A survey to evaluate parental consent as public policy for neonatal screening.

Authors:  R Faden; A J Chwalow; N A Holtzman; S D Horn
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 7.  False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications.

Authors:  M P Petticrew; A J Sowden; D Lister-Sharp; K Wright
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.014

8.  Survey of neonatal screening for primary hypothyroidism in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland 1982-4.

Authors:  D B Grant; I Smith
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1988-05-14

9.  Cystic fibrosis in the United Kingdom, 1968-1988: incidence, population and survival.

Authors:  J A Dodge; S Morison; P A Lewis; E C Colest; D Geddes; G Russell; A D Jackson; B Bentley
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 3.980

Review 10.  Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review.

Authors:  J M Green; J Hewison; H L Bekker; L D Bryant; H S Cuckle
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.014

View more
  15 in total

1.  Parental information use in the context of newborn bloodspot screening. An exploratory mixed methods study.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; K W Southern
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2012-02-16

2.  Parental views on informed consent for expanded newborn screening.

Authors:  Louise Moody; Kubra Choudhry
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Shared decision-making: the debate continues.

Authors:  Angela Coulter
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Considering consent: a structural equation modelling analysis of factors influencing decisional quality when accepting newborn screening.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Kevin W Southern
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 4.982

5.  Parental attitudes toward ethical and social issues surrounding the expansion of newborn screening using new technologies.

Authors:  L E Hasegawa; K A Fergus; N Ojeda; S M Au
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Education and parental involvement in decision-making about newborn screening: understanding goals to clarify content.

Authors:  Beth K Potter; Holly Etchegary; Stuart G Nicholls; Brenda J Wilson; Samantha M Craigie; Makda H Araia
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Consent for newborn screening: parents' and health-care professionals' experiences of consent in practice.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Stuart G Nicholls; Laure Tessier; Charlene Simmonds; Beth K Potter; Jamie C Brehaut; Daryl Pullman; Robyn Hayeems; Sari Zelenietz; Monica Lamoureux; Jennifer Milburn; Lesley Turner; Pranesh Chakraborty; Brenda Wilson
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  Young adults' pre-existing knowledge of cystic fibrosis and sickle cell diseases: implications for newborn screening.

Authors:  Melissa Noke; Fiona Ulph
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Framing optional genetic testing in the context of mandatory newborn screening tests.

Authors:  Sarah E Lillie; Beth A Tarini; Nancy K Janz; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-06-27       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Parents' responses to receiving sickle cell or cystic fibrosis carrier results for their child following newborn screening.

Authors:  Fiona Ulph; Tim Cullinan; Nadeem Qureshi; Joe Kai
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.