Literature DB >> 20457727

Policy issues and stakeholder concerns regarding the storage and use of residual newborn dried blood samples for research.

Erin Rothwell1, Rebecca Anderson, Jeffrey Botkin.   

Abstract

Newborn screening is an important public health programs in the United States. Over 4 million infants are screened each year for a number of conditions. There is a growing need for more explicit state policies governing the storage and research use of residual newborn samples. This paper provides an overview of newborn screening and issues related to policies of residual newborn samples as well as attitudes and opinions from stakeholders. Three groups (n = 21) were conducted with stakeholders: an African American group, a Pediatrician group and a Mothers of young children group. Despite the differences between these groups, consistent themes emerged from all groups that may be relevant for policy development governing the storage and use of residual newborn samples. The data from this exploratory study suggest that future policy developments with the newborn screening program warrant further public input on these topics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20457727      PMCID: PMC5847286          DOI: 10.1177/1527154410365563

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Policy Polit Nurs Pract        ISSN: 1527-1544


  26 in total

Review 1.  Whatever happened to qualitative description?

Authors:  M Sandelowski
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.228

2.  Serving the family from birth to the medical home. Newborn screening: a blueprint for the future - a call for a national agenda on state newborn screening programs

Authors: 
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 7.124

3.  The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think?

Authors:  Dave Wendler; Ezekiel Emanuel
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-08

4.  Research for newborn screening: developing a national framework.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Botkin
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  Research with stored biological samples: what do research participants want?

Authors:  Donna T Chen; Donald L Rosenstein; Palaniappan Muthappan; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Franklin G Miller; Ezekiel J Emanuel; David Wendler
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-03-28

6.  Status of newborn screening programs in the United States.

Authors:  Bradford L Therrell; Alissa Johnson; Donna Williams
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 7.124

7.  Public participation in medical policy-making and the status of consumer autonomy: the example of newborn-screening programs in the United States.

Authors:  E H Hiller; G Landenburger; M R Natowicz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Recommendations for effective newborn screening communication: results of focus groups with parents, providers, and experts.

Authors:  Terry C Davis; Sharon G Humiston; Connie L Arnold; Joseph A Bocchini; Pat F Bass; Estela M Kennen; Anna Bocchini; Penny Kyler; Michele Lloyd-Puryear
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 7.124

9.  Information and informed consent for neonatal screening: opinions and preferences of parents.

Authors:  Symone Detmar; Esther Hosli; Nynke Dijkstra; Niels Nijsingh; Marlies Rijnders; Marcel Verweij
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.689

10.  The use of selected community groups to elicit and understand the values underlying attitudes towards biotechnology.

Authors:  Joanna Gamble; Elsa Kassardjian
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2008-04
View more
  14 in total

1.  Public concerns regarding the storage and secondary uses of residual newborn bloodspots: an analysis of print media, legal cases, and public engagement activities.

Authors:  Shannon Cunningham; Kieran C O'Doherty; Karine Sénécal; David Secko; Denise Avard
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-12-23

2.  Feasibility of neonatal dried blood spot retrieval amid evolving state policies (2009-2010): a Children's Oncology Group study.

Authors:  Amy M Linabery; Megan E Slater; Logan G Spector; Andrew F Olshan; Susan K Stork; Michelle A Roesler; Gregory H Reaman; Julie A Ross
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 3.980

3.  'Cool! and creepy': engaging with college student stakeholders in Michigan's biobank.

Authors:  Tevah Platt; Jodyn Platt; Daniel B Thiel; Nicole Fisher; Sharon L R Kardia
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-06-12

4.  Assessing public attitudes on the retention and use of residual newborn screening blood samples: a focus group study.

Authors:  Erin Rothwell; Rebecca Anderson; Aaron Goldenberg; Michelle H Lewis; Louisa Stark; Matthew Burbank; Bob Wong; Jeffrey R Botkin
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2012-02-18       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Newborn screening and the obstetrician.

Authors:  Nancy C Rose; Siobhan M Dolan
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  'Born in Michigan? You're in the biobank': engaging population biobank participants through Facebook advertisements.

Authors:  J E Platt; T Platt; D Thiel; S L R Kardia
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 2.000

7.  Testing an online, dynamic consent portal for large population biobank research.

Authors:  Daniel B Thiel; Jodyn Platt; Tevah Platt; Susan B King; Nicole Fisher; Robert Shelton; Sharon L R Kardia
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 2.000

8.  Engaging a state: Facebook comments on a large population biobank.

Authors:  Tevah Platt; Jodyn Platt; Daniel Thiel; Sharon L R Kardia
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-04-05

9.  Community perspectives on public health biobanking: an analysis of community meetings on the Michigan BioTrust for Health.

Authors:  Daniel B Thiel; Tevah Platt; Jodyn Platt; Susan B King; Sharon L R Kardia
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-07-27

10.  Public attitudes regarding the use of electronic health information and residual clinical tissues for research.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Botkin; Erin Rothwell; Rebecca Anderson; Louisa A Stark; Joyce Mitchell
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-12-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.