Literature DB >> 27586542

Biobank participant support of newborn screening for disorders with variable treatment and intervention options.

Megan E Bunnell1, Beth A Tarini2, Michael Petros3, Aaron J Goldenberg4, Aishwarya Arjunan5, Catherine Wicklund6.   

Abstract

We aimed to better understand biobank participant opinions of the benefits of newborn screening (NBS) for certain disorder types and how terminology used in NBS discourse might impact stakeholder opinion. We conducted a between-subjects randomized survey of 5840 members of the Northwestern University Biobank. The survey contained 12 scenarios, each describing a disorder and its treatment. For each scenario, we varied the terminology used to describe treatment options. One survey version used the term intervention and the other treatment. The outcome measured for each scenario was perceived benefit (for the infant) and importance of testing (for participants). Comparisons were made between participants and between scenarios. Ratings of benefit and importance were not influenced by the use of the term intervention versus treatment within scenarios. Nuances existed in ratings of benefit to the infant and importance to participants amongst scenarios. Participants were most likely to perceive benefit and importance in screening for a disorder if treatment/intervention offered a high chance of improved outcomes. While participants perceived benefit to the infant and importance to themselves in screening for most disorders, nuances in inter-scenario ratings suggest participants weighed availability and type of treatment/intervention in consideration of the benefits of NBS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Benefit; Biobank participants; Intervention; Newborn screening; Treatment

Year:  2016        PMID: 27586542      PMCID: PMC5138165          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-016-0279-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  27 in total

1.  Changing perspectives on the benefits of newborn screening.

Authors:  Donald B Bailey; Laura M Beskow; Arlene M Davis; Debra Skinner
Journal:  Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev       Date:  2006

2.  The blurred distinction between treatable and untreatable conditions in newborn screening.

Authors:  Donald B Bailey
Journal:  Health Matrix Clevel       Date:  2009

3.  Maternal attitudes and knowledge about newborn screening.

Authors:  Patricia Newcomb; Barbara True; Judith Walsh; Maynard Dyson; Suzanne Lockwood; Becky Douglas
Journal:  MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.412

4.  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

5.  Newborn screening for lysosomal storage diseases: an ethical and policy analysis.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 4.982

6.  Participant Satisfaction With a Preference-Setting Tool for the Return of Individual Research Results in Pediatric Genomic Research.

Authors:  Ingrid A Holm; Brittany R Iles; Sonja I Ziniel; Phoebe L Bacon; Sarah K Savage; Kurt D Christensen; Elissa R Weitzman; Robert C Green; Noelle L Huntington
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 7.  Newborn screening for fragile X syndrome.

Authors:  Donald B Bailey
Journal:  Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev       Date:  2004

8.  Parental Opinions about the Expansion of the Neonatal Screening Programme.

Authors:  Symone Detmar; Nynke Dijkstra; Niels Nijsingh; Marlies Rijnders; Marcel Verweij; Esther Hosli
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2008-01-15

9.  Public support for neonatal screening for Pompe disease, a broad-phenotype condition.

Authors:  Stephanie Shifra Weinreich; Tessel Rigter; Carla Geertruida van El; Wybo Jan Dondorp; Pieter Johannes Kostense; Ans T van der Ploeg; Arnold J J Reuser; Martina Cornelia Cornel; Marloes Louise Catharina Hagemans
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 4.123

10.  Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: results from a national survey.

Authors:  Gail E Henderson; R Jean Cadigan; Teresa P Edwards; Ian Conlon; Anders G Nelson; James P Evans; Arlene M Davis; Catherine Zimmer; Bryan J Weiner
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 11.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.