Literature DB >> 22071888

Health-care providers' views on pursuing reproductive benefit through newborn screening: the case of sickle cell disorders.

Yvonne Bombard1, Fiona A Miller, Robin Z Hayeems, Brenda J Wilson, June C Carroll, Martha Paynter, Julian Little, Judith Allanson, Jessica P Bytautas, Pranesh Chakraborty.   

Abstract

Newborn screening (NBS) programs aim to identify affected infants before the onset of treatable disorders. Historically, benefits to the family and society were considered secondary to this clinical benefit; yet, recent discourse defending expanded NBS has argued that screening can in part be justified by secondary benefits, such as learning reproductive risk information to support family planning ('reproductive benefit'). Despite increased attention to these secondary benefits of NBS, stakeholders' values remain unknown. We report a mixed methods study that included an examination of providers' views toward the pursuit of reproductive risk information through NBS, using sickle cell disorder carrier status as an example. We surveyed a stratified random sample of 1615 providers in Ontario, and interviewed 42 providers across 7 disciplines. A majority endorsed the identification of reproductive risks as a goal of NBS (74-77%). Providers' dominant rationale was that knowledge of carrier status is an important and inherent benefit of NBS as it allows people to make reproductive choices, which is consistent with the goals of disease prevention. However, some challenged its appropriateness, questioning its logic, timing and impact on disease prevention. Others were sensitive to intruding on individuals' choices or children's independent rights. While the dominant view is consistent with discourse defending expanded NBS, it deviates from the traditional screening principles that underpin most public health interventions. Broader discussion of the balance between benefits to screened individuals and those to families and societies, in the context of public health programs, is needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22071888      PMCID: PMC3330205          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2011.188

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  21 in total

Review 1.  Screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia: a systematic review with supplementary research.

Authors:  S C Davies; E Cronin; M Gill; P Greengross; M Hickman; C Normand
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 2.  Whatever happened to qualitative description?

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

3.  An ethics framework for public health.

Authors:  N E Kass
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  From public health emergency to public health service: the implications of evolving criteria for newborn screening panels.

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Coleen A Boyle; Aileen Kenneson; Muin J Khoury; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  Informing parents about expanded newborn screening: influences on provider involvement.

Authors:  Robin Z Hayeems; Fiona A Miller; Julian Little; June C Carroll; Judith Allanson; Pranesh Chakraborty; Brenda J Wilson; Jessica P Bytautas; Robert J Christensen
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2009-08-10       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  "Prevention" and the goals of genetic medicine.

Authors:  E T Juengst
Journal:  Hum Gene Ther       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 5.695

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.  Newborn screening program practices in the United States: notification, research, and consent.

Authors:  Kenneth D Mandl; Shlomit Feit; Cecilia Larson; Isaac S Kohane
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 9.  Genetic counseling.

Authors:  F C Fraser
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1974-09       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  Newborn screening for developmental disabilities: reframing presumptive benefit.

Authors:  Donald B Bailey; Debra Skinner; Steven F Warren
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2005-09-29       Impact factor: 9.308

View more
  8 in total

1.  Newborn screening for sickle cell disease: whose reproductive benefit?

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Reply to Ross' commentary: Reproductive benefit through newborn screening: preferences, policy and ethics.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Fiona A Miller
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  Sickle cell carriers' unmet information needs: Beyond knowing trait status.

Authors:  Tilicia L Mayo-Gamble; David Schlundt; Jennifer Cunningham-Erves; Velma McBride Murry; Kemberlee Bonnet; Delores Quasie-Woode; Charles P Mouton
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Genetics professionals' opinions of whole-genome sequencing in the newborn period.

Authors:  Elizabeth Ulm; W Gregory Feero; Richard Dineen; Joel Charrow; Catherine Wicklund
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 5.  Points to Consider: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Implications of Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Botkin; John W Belmont; Jonathan S Berg; Benjamin E Berkman; Yvonne Bombard; Ingrid A Holm; Howard P Levy; Kelly E Ormond; Howard M Saal; Nancy B Spinner; Benjamin S Wilfond; Joseph D McInerney
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Disparities in current and future childhood and newborn carrier identification.

Authors:  Melissa Noke; Alison Wearden; Sarah Peters; Fiona Ulph
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  A secondary benefit: the reproductive impact of carrier results from newborn screening for cystic fibrosis.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Fiona A Miller; Carolyn J Barg; Sarah J Patton; June C Carroll; Pranesh Chakraborty; Beth K Potter; Karen Tam; Louise Taylor; Elizabeth Kerr; Christine Davies; Jennifer Milburn; Felix Ratjen; Astrid Guttmann; Robin Z Hayeems
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 8.  Reflecting on earlier experiences with unsolicited findings: points to consider for next-generation sequencing and informed consent in diagnostics.

Authors:  Tessel Rigter; Lidewij Henneman; Ulf Kristoffersson; Alison Hall; Helger G Yntema; Pascal Borry; Holger Tönnies; Quinten Waisfisz; Mariet W Elting; Wybo J Dondorp; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 4.878

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.