Literature DB >> 24549052

Public views on participating in newborn screening using genome sequencing.

Yvonne Bombard1, Fiona A Miller2, Robin Z Hayeems2, Carolyn Barg2, Celine Cressman2, June C Carroll3, Brenda J Wilson4, Julian Little4, Denise Avard5, Michael Painter-Main6, Judith Allanson7, Yves Giguere8, Pranesh Chakraborty9.   

Abstract

Growing discussion on the use of whole-genome or exome sequencing (WG/ES) in newborn screening (NBS) has raised concerns regarding the generation of incidental information on millions of infants annually. It is unknown whether integrating WG/ES would alter public expectations regarding participation in universal NBS. We assessed public willingness to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with current NBS. Our secondary objective was to assess the public's beliefs regarding a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS compared with current NBS. We examined self-reported attitudes regarding willingness to participate in NBS using a cross-sectional national survey of Canadian residents recruited through an internet panel, reflective of the Canadian population by age, gender and region. Our results showed that fewer respondents would be willing to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with NBS using current technologies (80 vs 94%, P<0.001), or perceived a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS vs current NBS (30 vs 48%, P<0.001). Our findings suggest that integrating WG/ES into NBS might reduce participation, and challenge the moral authority that NBS programmes rely upon to ensure population benefits. These findings point to the need for caution in the untargeted use of WG/ES in public health contexts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24549052      PMCID: PMC4200434          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.22

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


  38 in total

1.  Public attitudes about genetic testing in the newborn period.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Elizabeth Dicks; Kathleen Hodgkinson; Daryl Pullman; Jane Green; Patrick Parfey
Journal:  J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs       Date:  2012-03

2.  After 50 years, newborn screening continues to yield public health gains.

Authors:  Bridget M Kuehn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Patients' and clinicians' research priorities.

Authors:  Ruth J Stewart; Jenny Caird; Kathryn Oliver; Sandy Oliver
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-12-22       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Impact of information about risks and benefits of cancer screening on intended participation.

Authors:  Thomas V Perneger; Stéphane Cullati; Laura Schiesari; Agathe Charvet-Bérard
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 9.162

5.  Rapid whole-genome sequencing for genetic disease diagnosis in neonatal intensive care units.

Authors:  Carol Jean Saunders; Neil Andrew Miller; Sarah Elizabeth Soden; Darrell Lee Dinwiddie; Aaron Noll; Noor Abu Alnadi; Nevene Andraws; Melanie LeAnn Patterson; Lisa Ann Krivohlavek; Joel Fellis; Sean Humphray; Peter Saffrey; Zoya Kingsbury; Jacqueline Claire Weir; Jason Betley; Russell James Grocock; Elliott Harrison Margulies; Emily Gwendolyn Farrow; Michael Artman; Nicole Pauline Safina; Joshua Erin Petrikin; Kevin Peter Hall; Stephen Francis Kingsmore
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 17.956

6.  Public trust in Dutch health care.

Authors:  G F M Straten; R D Friele; P P Groenewegen
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Can a moral reasoning exercise improve response quality to surveys of healthcare priorities?

Authors:  M Johri; L J Damschroder; B J Zikmund-Fisher; S Y H Kim; P A Ubel
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Expectations and values about expanded newborn screening: a public engagement study.

Authors:  Robin Z Hayeems; Fiona A Miller; Yvonne Bombard; Denise Avard; June Carroll; Brenda Wilson; Julian Little; Pranesh Chakraborty; Jessica Bytautas; Yves Giguere; Judith Allanson; Renata Axler
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Alternatives to project-specific consent for access to personal information for health research: insights from a public dialogue.

Authors:  Donald J Willison; Marilyn Swinton; Lisa Schwartz; Julia Abelson; Cathy Charles; David Northrup; Ji Cheng; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2008-11-19       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).

Authors:  Gunther Eysenbach
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2004-09-29       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Potential Uses and Inherent Challenges of Using Genome-Scale Sequencing to Augment Current Newborn Screening.

Authors:  Jonathan S Berg; Cynthia M Powell
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 6.915

Review 2.  International differences in the evaluation of conditions for newborn bloodspot screening: a review of scientific literature and policy documents.

Authors:  Marleen E Jansen; Selina C Metternick-Jones; Karla J Lister
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 4.246

3.  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

4.  Consent for newborn screening: parents' and health-care professionals' experiences of consent in practice.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Stuart G Nicholls; Laure Tessier; Charlene Simmonds; Beth K Potter; Jamie C Brehaut; Daryl Pullman; Robyn Hayeems; Sari Zelenietz; Monica Lamoureux; Jennifer Milburn; Lesley Turner; Pranesh Chakraborty; Brenda Wilson
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Ethics, genetics and public policies in Uruguay: newborn and infant screening as a paradigm.

Authors:  Mariela Larrandaburu; Ursula Matte; Ana Noble; Zully Olivera; Maria Teresa V Sanseverino; Luis Nacul; Lavinia Schuler-Faccini
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2015-05-29

6.  Exome/Genome-Wide Testing in Newborn Screening: A Proportionate Path Forward.

Authors:  Vasiliki Rahimzadeh; Jan M Friedman; Guido de Wert; Bartha M Knoppers
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 7.  How does the genomic naive public perceive whole genomic testing for health purposes? A scoping review.

Authors:  Isabella A Sherburn; Keri Finlay; Stephanie Best
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 5.351

8.  Parents are interested in newborn genomic testing during the early postpartum period.

Authors:  Susan E Waisbren; Danielle K Bäck; Christina Liu; Sarah S Kalia; Steven A Ringer; Ingrid A Holm; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 9.  Incidental Findings with Genomic Testing: Implications for Genetic Counseling Practice.

Authors:  Myra I Roche; Jonathan S Berg
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2015-08-25

10.  Principles of Genomic Newborn Screening Programs: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lilian Downie; Jane Halliday; Sharon Lewis; David J Amor
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-07-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.