BACKGROUND: Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism is regarded as highly successful by health professionals. Little is known about parents' perspectives on child development and social impact on families. METHODS: Parents of 187 patients with metabolic disorders detected by newborn screening rated child development, perceived burdens on child and family, and future expectations on a questionnaire with standardized answers. Parental ratings were compared with standardized psychometric test results. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with extent of perceived burden. RESULTS: In 26.2% of patients, parents perceived delays in global development and/or specific developmental domains (physical, social, intellectual, language). Parents expected normal future development in 95.7%, and an independent adult life for their child in 94.6%. Comparison with psychometric test results showed that parents of children with cognitive impairments tended to overrate their child's abilities. Mild/medium burden posed on the family (child) by the metabolic disorder was stated by 56.1% (48.9%) of parents, severe/very severe burden by 19.3% (8.6%). One third of families reported financial burden due to the metabolic disorder. Dietary treatment and diagnoses with risk for metabolic decompensation despite treatment were associated with higher perceived burden for the family. Disorders rated as potentially very burdensome by experts were not rated accordingly by parents, demonstrating different perspectives of professionals and parents. CONCLUSION: Although newborn screening leads to favourable physical and cognitive outcome, living with a metabolic disorder may cause considerable stress on patients and families, emphasizing the need for comprehensive multidisciplinary care including psychological and social support.
BACKGROUND: Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism is regarded as highly successful by health professionals. Little is known about parents' perspectives on child development and social impact on families. METHODS: Parents of 187 patients with metabolic disorders detected by newborn screening rated child development, perceived burdens on child and family, and future expectations on a questionnaire with standardized answers. Parental ratings were compared with standardized psychometric test results. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with extent of perceived burden. RESULTS: In 26.2% of patients, parents perceived delays in global development and/or specific developmental domains (physical, social, intellectual, language). Parents expected normal future development in 95.7%, and an independent adult life for their child in 94.6%. Comparison with psychometric test results showed that parents of children with cognitive impairments tended to overrate their child's abilities. Mild/medium burden posed on the family (child) by the metabolic disorder was stated by 56.1% (48.9%) of parents, severe/very severe burden by 19.3% (8.6%). One third of families reported financial burden due to the metabolic disorder. Dietary treatment and diagnoses with risk for metabolic decompensation despite treatment were associated with higher perceived burden for the family. Disorders rated as potentially very burdensome by experts were not rated accordingly by parents, demonstrating different perspectives of professionals and parents. CONCLUSION: Although newborn screening leads to favourable physical and cognitive outcome, living with a metabolic disorder may cause considerable stress on patients and families, emphasizing the need for comprehensive multidisciplinary care including psychological and social support.
Authors: Janneke Hatzmann; Marlies J Valstar; Annet M Bosch; Frits A Wijburg; Hugo S A Heymans; Martha A Grootenhuis Journal: Acta Paediatr Date: 2009-04-21 Impact factor: 2.299
Authors: Stefan Kölker; Sven F Garbade; Nikolas Boy; Esther M Maier; Thomas Meissner; Chris Mühlhausen; Julia B Hennermann; Thomas Lücke; Johannes Häberle; Jochen Baumkötter; Wolfram Haller; Edith Muller; Johannes Zschocke; Peter Burgard; Georg F Hoffmann Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Nikolas Boy; Chris Mühlhausen; Esther M Maier; Jana Heringer; Birgit Assmann; Peter Burgard; Marjorie Dixon; Sandra Fleissner; Cheryl R Greenberg; Inga Harting; Georg F Hoffmann; Daniela Karall; David M Koeller; Michael B Krawinkel; Jürgen G Okun; Thomas Opladen; Roland Posset; Katja Sahm; Johannes Zschocke; Stefan Kölker Journal: J Inherit Metab Dis Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 4.982
Authors: Shabnaz Siddiq; Brenda J Wilson; Ian D Graham; Monica Lamoureux; Sara D Khangura; Kylie Tingley; Laure Tessier; Pranesh Chakraborty; Doug Coyle; Sarah Dyack; Jane Gillis; Cheryl Greenberg; Robin Z Hayeems; Shailly Jain-Ghai; Jonathan B Kronick; Anne-Marie Laberge; Julian Little; John J Mitchell; Chitra Prasad; Komudi Siriwardena; Rebecca Sparkes; Kathy N Speechley; Sylvia Stockler; Yannis Trakadis; Sarah Wafa; Jagdeep Walia; Kumanan Wilson; Nataliya Yuskiv; Beth K Potter Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: Katie Carpenter; Anja Wittkowski; Dougal J Hare; Emma Medford; Stewart Rust; Simon A Jones; Debbie M Smith Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Moacir Wajner; Angela Sitta; Aline Kayser; Marion Deon; Ana C Groehs; Daniella M Coelho; Carmen R Vargas Journal: Genet Mol Biol Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 1.771