Literature DB >> 16199673

Pediatricians' attitudes toward expanding newborn screening.

Kruti Acharya1, Paul D Ackerman, Lainie Friedman Ross.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Traditional population screening focuses on conditions for which early treatment prevents severe morbidity and mortality. The classic example in pediatrics is newborn screening for phenylketonuria, which began in the 1960s. In 1968, Wilson and Jungner delineated 10 criteria that would justify population screening. These criteria have been reaffirmed by many newborn screening task forces as the standard for adding conditions to newborn screening programs. Today, however, some newborn screening programs are expanding to include conditions that may not meet all of the traditional screening criteria. Little is known about pediatricians' attitudes toward expanding screening. We examine the attitudes of pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists toward screening for cystic fibrosis (CF), Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), fragile X, and type 1 diabetes.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of 600 pediatricians, including those who are members of the section of genetics, endocrinology, pulmonology, and neurology of the American Academy of Pediatrics. For each condition, pediatricians were queried about (1) testing high-risk infants, (2) newborn screening, and (3) population screening or testing beyond the newborn period. Demographic data were also collected.
RESULTS: A total of 232 (43%) of 537 eligible pediatricians returned surveys. More than 75% support testing high-risk infants for all conditions except type 1 diabetes. CF was the only condition for which >50% supported newborn screening. Newborn screening was preferred over screening older infants for all conditions except fragile X. Subspecialty affiliation did not have a significant impact with respect to attitudes about testing high-risk children, newborn screening, or screening beyond infancy. We analyzed the data by the number of patients with the queried condition under the physician's care and by the number of affected family members. Neither aspect was significant. We also analyzed the data by gender, by year of residency graduation, and by geographic location. None of these factors revealed significant differences in responses. For each condition, 8% to 41% of physicians would personally choose to test their own infant. We found that physicians' opinion about what they would want for their own children correlated with their attitude about population newborn screening. Those who would personally choose testing of their own infants were highly likely to support newborn screening for CF (98%), DMD (94%), and fragile X (98%), but only 78% of those who would personally opt for newborn screening of type 1 diabetes would also endorse population-based screening. This was statistically significant for each condition. Those who would choose not to test their own infants were significantly less likely to support newborn screening of the general population. One third of those who did not want to test their own newborns for CF supported population screening, whereas only one fifth supported DMD and fragile X population screening. For type 1 diabetes, 98% of those who would not personally choose newborn testing did not want it offered as a population screening program.
CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians support diagnostic genetic testing of high-risk children but are less supportive of expanding newborn screening, particularly for conditions that do not meet the Wilson and Jungner criteria. Willingness to expand newborn screening does not correlate with professional characteristics but rather with personal interest in testing of their own children.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16199673     DOI: 10.1542/peds.2005-0453

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  12 in total

1.  Parents' decisions to screen newborns for FMR1 gene expansions in a pilot research project.

Authors:  Debra Skinner; Summer Choudhury; John Sideris; Sonia Guarda; Allen Buansi; Myra Roche; Cynthia Powell; Donald B Bailey
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2011-05-29       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Primary care providers' role in newborn screening result notification for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Robin Z Hayeems; Fiona A Miller; Carolyn J Barg; Yvonne Bombard; Pranesh Chakraborty; Beth K Potter; Sarah Patton; Jessica Peace Bytautas; Karen Tam; Louise Taylor; Elizabeth Kerr; Christine Davies; Jennifer Milburn; Felix Ratjen; Astrid Guttmann; June C Carroll
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Attitudes of genetic counselors towards genetic susceptibility testing in children.

Authors:  Rishona L Mackoff; Ellen F Iverson; Preston Kiekel; Frederick Dorey; Jeffrey S Upperman; Aida B Metzenberg
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Interest in genetic counseling and testing for adolescent nicotine addiction susceptibility among a sample of adolescent medicine providers attending a scientific conference on adolescent health.

Authors:  Kenneth P Tercyak; Beth N Peshkin; Anisha Abraham; Lauren Wine; Leslie R Walker
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 5.012

5.  Fragile X screening: attitudes of genetic health professionals.

Authors:  Kruti Acharya; Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2009-02-15       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: Role of primary care providers in caring for infants with positive screening results.

Authors:  June C Carroll; Robin Z Hayeems; Fiona A Miller; Carolyn J Barg; Yvonne Bombard; Pranesh Chakraborty; Beth K Potter; Jessica Peace Bytautas; Karen Tam; Louise Taylor; Elizabeth Kerr; Christine Davies; Jennifer Milburn; Felix Ratjen; Astrid Guttmann
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 3.275

7.  Delayed diagnosis in duchenne muscular dystrophy: data from the Muscular Dystrophy Surveillance, Tracking, and Research Network (MD STARnet).

Authors:  Emma Ciafaloni; Deborah J Fox; Shree Pandya; Christina P Westfield; Soman Puzhankara; Paul A Romitti; Katherine D Mathews; Timothy M Miller; Dennis J Matthews; Lisa A Miller; Christopher Cunniff; Charlotte M Druschel; Richard T Moxley
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2009-04-25       Impact factor: 4.406

8.  Pediatricians' attitudes about screening newborns for infectious diseases.

Authors:  Hanna Schittek; Joy Koopmans; Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2008-12-09

9.  Caregiver opinions about fragile X population screening.

Authors:  Donald B Bailey; Ellen Bishop; Melissa Raspa; Debra Skinner
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-09-13       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Stakeholder attitudes towards the role and application of informed consent for newborn bloodspot screening: a study protocol.

Authors:  S G Nicholls; L Tessier; H Etchegary; J C Brehaut; B K Potter; R Z Hayeems; P Chakraborty; J Marcadier; J Milburn; D Pullman; L Turner; B J Wilson
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.