BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many state newborn screening (NBS) programs retain residual NBS bloodspots after the completion of screening. Potential uses for residual specimens include laboratory quality assurance, biomedical research, and, rarely, forensic applications. Our objective was to evaluate public opinion about the policies and practices relevant to the retention and use of residual bloodspots for biomedical research. METHODS: A total of 3855 respondents were recruited using 3 methods: focus groups (n = 157), paper or telephone surveys (n = 1418), and a Knowledge Networks panel (n = 2280). Some participants (n = 1769) viewed a 22-minute movie about the retention and use of residual specimens while other participants were provided only written information about this practice. All participants were surveyed using a 38-item questionnaire. RESULTS: A diverse set of participants was recruited. Respondents were very supportive of NBS in general and accepting of the use of residual bloodspots for important research activities. Respondents were evenly divided on the acceptability of NBS without parental permission, but the majority of respondents supported the use of an "opt-in" process for parental permission for residual bloodspot retention and use. Viewing the educational movie was associated with greater support for bloodspot retention and use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the general public surveyed here was supportive of NBS and residual sample retention and research use. However, there was a clear preference for an informed permission process for parents regarding these activities. Education about NBS was associated with a higher level of support and may be important to maintain public trust in these important programs.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many state newborn screening (NBS) programs retain residual NBS bloodspots after the completion of screening. Potential uses for residual specimens include laboratory quality assurance, biomedical research, and, rarely, forensic applications. Our objective was to evaluate public opinion about the policies and practices relevant to the retention and use of residual bloodspots for biomedical research. METHODS: A total of 3855 respondents were recruited using 3 methods: focus groups (n = 157), paper or telephone surveys (n = 1418), and a Knowledge Networks panel (n = 2280). Some participants (n = 1769) viewed a 22-minute movie about the retention and use of residual specimens while other participants were provided only written information about this practice. All participants were surveyed using a 38-item questionnaire. RESULTS: A diverse set of participants was recruited. Respondents were very supportive of NBS in general and accepting of the use of residual bloodspots for important research activities. Respondents were evenly divided on the acceptability of NBS without parental permission, but the majority of respondents supported the use of an "opt-in" process for parental permission for residual bloodspot retention and use. Viewing the educational movie was associated with greater support for bloodspot retention and use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the general public surveyed here was supportive of NBS and residual sample retention and research use. However, there was a clear preference for an informed permission process for parents regarding these activities. Education about NBS was associated with a higher level of support and may be important to maintain public trust in these important programs.
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
Authors: Ellen A Lipstein; Emara Nabi; James M Perrin; Donna Luff; Marsha F Browning; Karen A Kuhlthau Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-09-13 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Erin W Rothwell; Rebecca A Anderson; Matthew J Burbank; Aaron J Goldenberg; Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Louisa A Stark; Bob Wong; Jeffrey R Botkin Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Sanwat N Chaudhuri; Steven J M Butala; R Wayne Ball; Christopher T Braniff Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2008-04-09 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Bradford L Therrell; W Harry Hannon; Donald B Bailey; Edward B Goldman; Jana Monaco; Bent Norgaard-Pedersen; Sharon F Terry; Alissa Johnson; R Rodney Howell Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Galen Joseph; Flavia Chen; Julie Harris-Wai; Jennifer M Puck; Charlotte Young; Barbara A Koenig Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Erin Rothwell; Rebecca A Anderson; Kathryn J Swoboda; Louisa Stark; Jeffrey R Botkin Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 2.802