Literature DB >> 22736213

Design and evaluation of a decision aid for inviting parents to participate in a fragile X newborn screening pilot study.

Donald B Bailey1, Megan A Lewis, Shelly L Harris, Tracey Grant, Carla Bann, Ellen Bishop, Myra Roche, Sonia Guarda, Leah Barnum, Cynthia Powell, Bradford L Therrell.   

Abstract

The major objectives of this project were to develop and evaluate a brochure to help parents make an informed decision about participation in a fragile X newborn screening study. We used an iterative development process that drew on principles of Informed Decision Making (IDM), stakeholder input, design expertise, and expert evaluation. A simulation study with 118 women examined response to the brochure. An independent review rated the brochure high on informational content, guidance, and values. Mothers took an average of 6.5 min to read it and scored an average of 91.1 % correct on a knowledge test. Most women rated the brochure as high quality and trustworthy. When asked to make a hypothetical decision about study participation, 61.9 % would agree to screening. Structural equation modeling showed that agreement to screening and decisional confidence were associated with perceived quality and trust in the brochure. Minority and white mothers did not differ in perceptions of quality or trust. We demonstrate the application of IDM in developing a study brochure. The brochure was highly rated by experts and consumers, met high standards for IDM, and achieved stated goals in a simulation study. The IDM provides a model for consent in research disclosing complicated genetic information of uncertain value.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22736213     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-012-9511-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  38 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Analysis of educational materials and destruction/opt-out initiatives for storage and use of residual newborn screening samples.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2010-09-21

3.  Informing parents about newborn screening.

Authors:  Alex R Kemper; Kathryn E Fant; Sarah J Clark
Journal:  Public Health Nurs       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.462

Review 4.  Measures used in studies of informed decision making about cancer screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Patricia Dolan Mullen; Jennifer Dacey Allen; Karen Glanz; Maria E Fernandez; Deborah J Bowen; Sandi L Pruitt; Beth A Glenn; Michael Pignone
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2006-12

5.  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

6.  Questioning the Need for Informed Consent: A Case Study of California's Experience with a Pilot Newborn Screening Research Project.

Authors:  Lisa Feuchtbaum; George Cunningham; Stan Sciortino
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.742

7.  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

8.  Examination of the communication practices between state newborn screening programs and the medical home.

Authors:  Sunnah Kim; Michele A Lloyd-Puryear; Thomas F Tonniges
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 7.124

9.  Understanding why decision aids work: linking process with outcome.

Authors:  Hilary L Bekker; Jenny Hewison; Jim G Thornton
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2003-07

10.  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

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  A Review on Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Awareness, Knowledge, and Attitudes.

Authors:  Rebecca R Moultrie; Julia Kish-Doto; Holly Peay; Megan A Lewis
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-04-16       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Family Communication and Cascade Testing for Fragile X Syndrome.

Authors:  Melissa Raspa; Anne Edwards; Anne C Wheeler; Ellen Bishop; Donald B Bailey
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Maternal Consequences of the Detection of Fragile X Carriers in Newborn Screening.

Authors:  Donald B Bailey; Anne Wheeler; Elizabeth Berry-Kravis; Randi Hagerman; Flora Tassone; Cynthia M Powell; Myra Roche; Louise W Gane; John Sideris
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2015-07-13       Impact factor: 7.124

4.  Parents' Perspectives and Societal Acceptance of Implementation of Newborn Screening for SCID in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Maartje Blom; Robbert G M Bredius; Marleen E Jansen; Gert Weijman; Evelien A Kemper; Clementien L Vermont; Iris H I M Hollink; Willem A Dik; Joris M van Montfrans; Mariëlle E van Gijn; Stefanie S Henriet; Koen J van Aerde; Wouter Koole; Arjan C Lankester; Eugènie H B M Dekkers; Peter C J I Schielen; Martine C de Vries; Lidewij Henneman; Mirjam van der Burg
Journal:  J Clin Immunol       Date:  2020-10-18       Impact factor: 8.317

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.