The acceptability of blood spot screening and genome sequencing in newborn screening: a systematic review examining evidence and frameworks.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health technology assessment Pub Date : 2025-03-12 DOI:10.3310/RTPQ2268
Duncan Chambers, Susan Baxter, Anastasios Bastounis, Katherine Jones, Burak Kundakci, Anna Cantrell, Andrew Booth
{"title":"The acceptability of blood spot screening and genome sequencing in newborn screening: a systematic review examining evidence and frameworks.","authors":"Duncan Chambers, Susan Baxter, Anastasios Bastounis, Katherine Jones, Burak Kundakci, Anna Cantrell, Andrew Booth","doi":"10.3310/RTPQ2268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Population-wide newborn blood spot screening programmes are a successful public health intervention used to detect whether the baby is at risk of certain rare conditions, with the aim of earlier diagnosis and provision of optimal care and treatment. Evaluating candidate conditions to include in newborn blood spot and genetic sequencing raises questions regarding acceptability to parents/carers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the context of the possible expansion of the newborn blood spot screening programme in the United Kingdom, this review aimed to systematically review research on the acceptability to parents of newborn blood spot screening and genetic sequencing. A protocol was developed prior to commencing the review and was registered on the PROSPERO database. A team of researchers carried out the review, with checking at all stages carried out by at least two individuals. We included research published after 2013 with participants who were pregnant or a recent parent of a newborn and were resident in a high-income country. We included quantitative and qualitative studies that investigated the acceptability to parents/carers of newborn blood spot screening or genetic sequencing. Quantitative studies were narratively synthesised, and theories/frameworks identified and evaluated. Qualitative studies were analysed for recurring themes, and a meta-synthesis was carried out to compare and contrast these two types of data. We quality appraised included articles using tools appropriate for their study design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Searches were carried out in September to November 2023 and screening identified 25 relevant research articles. Just over half were from North America, with four existing reviews and nine qualitative studies. Domains of acceptability described in the literature were: support for screening; level of anxiety, information and knowledge; consent; views of the procedure; and support after screening. The research indicated consensus support for blood spot screening, and for expanding to some other conditions, although some parental anxiety was reported. Parents/carers mostly perceived that they had received sufficient information, but the timing of this could be improved. While parents indicated interest in genomic screening, studies highlighted the need for clearer consent procedures and greater support for parents following genomic screening than for blood spot screening. Only three included studies reported using any kind of theoretical framework.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Most parents/carers found newborn blood spot screening programmes to be acceptable and favoured their large-scale implementation. A minority of parents/carers expressed concerns regarding the acceptability of processes underpinning newborn blood spot screening, such as consent, the timing of receiving information and support available after testing. More research is needed regarding the acceptability of newborn genomic sequencing screening programmes, which are less established compared with newborn blood spot screening programmes.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The over-representation of studies conducted in the United States has implications for the applicability of findings to other countries where testing is not typically mandatory and health systems differ considerably. Most studies were of cross-sectional design and there was limited representation of people from lower incomes and non-white ethnicity. While the inclusion of studies only in populations of future or very recent parents provided coherence to the findings, unclear reporting of participants may have resulted in under- or overinclusion of some studies.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR159927.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1-53"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/RTPQ2268","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Population-wide newborn blood spot screening programmes are a successful public health intervention used to detect whether the baby is at risk of certain rare conditions, with the aim of earlier diagnosis and provision of optimal care and treatment. Evaluating candidate conditions to include in newborn blood spot and genetic sequencing raises questions regarding acceptability to parents/carers.

Methods: In the context of the possible expansion of the newborn blood spot screening programme in the United Kingdom, this review aimed to systematically review research on the acceptability to parents of newborn blood spot screening and genetic sequencing. A protocol was developed prior to commencing the review and was registered on the PROSPERO database. A team of researchers carried out the review, with checking at all stages carried out by at least two individuals. We included research published after 2013 with participants who were pregnant or a recent parent of a newborn and were resident in a high-income country. We included quantitative and qualitative studies that investigated the acceptability to parents/carers of newborn blood spot screening or genetic sequencing. Quantitative studies were narratively synthesised, and theories/frameworks identified and evaluated. Qualitative studies were analysed for recurring themes, and a meta-synthesis was carried out to compare and contrast these two types of data. We quality appraised included articles using tools appropriate for their study design.

Results: Searches were carried out in September to November 2023 and screening identified 25 relevant research articles. Just over half were from North America, with four existing reviews and nine qualitative studies. Domains of acceptability described in the literature were: support for screening; level of anxiety, information and knowledge; consent; views of the procedure; and support after screening. The research indicated consensus support for blood spot screening, and for expanding to some other conditions, although some parental anxiety was reported. Parents/carers mostly perceived that they had received sufficient information, but the timing of this could be improved. While parents indicated interest in genomic screening, studies highlighted the need for clearer consent procedures and greater support for parents following genomic screening than for blood spot screening. Only three included studies reported using any kind of theoretical framework.

Discussion: Most parents/carers found newborn blood spot screening programmes to be acceptable and favoured their large-scale implementation. A minority of parents/carers expressed concerns regarding the acceptability of processes underpinning newborn blood spot screening, such as consent, the timing of receiving information and support available after testing. More research is needed regarding the acceptability of newborn genomic sequencing screening programmes, which are less established compared with newborn blood spot screening programmes.

Limitations: The over-representation of studies conducted in the United States has implications for the applicability of findings to other countries where testing is not typically mandatory and health systems differ considerably. Most studies were of cross-sectional design and there was limited representation of people from lower incomes and non-white ethnicity. While the inclusion of studies only in populations of future or very recent parents provided coherence to the findings, unclear reporting of participants may have resulted in under- or overinclusion of some studies.

Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR159927.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
期刊最新文献
Management of diarrhoea in patients with stable ulcerative colitis with low FODMAP diet, amitriptyline, ondansetron or loperamide: the MODULATE RCT. The acceptability of blood spot screening and genome sequencing in newborn screening: a systematic review examining evidence and frameworks. Interventions that challenge established and accepted clinical practice: lessons learnt from a process evaluation of the STOP-APE trial. Learnings from the establishment and delivery of the UK Collaborative Paediatric Palliative Care Research Network. Establishing palliative care research partnerships in Northern Ireland.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1