下一代测序的伦理意义和新生儿筛查的未来。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners Pub Date : 2021-06-30 DOI:10.1097/JXX.0000000000000631
Shelley White-Corey, Jessica L Peck, Rosa I Pérez
{"title":"下一代测序的伦理意义和新生儿筛查的未来。","authors":"Shelley White-Corey,&nbsp;Jessica L Peck,&nbsp;Rosa I Pérez","doi":"10.1097/JXX.0000000000000631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Over the last 50 years, routine newborn blood screening for congenital disorders has been hailed as a miracle of modern science, saving countless lives by providing a means to detect and treat life-threatening disorders before symptoms present. Despite progress made with more than 5,000 babies effectively identified with rare conditions each year, congenital anomalies collectively remain at the top of the list as the cause of death for babies under 1 year of age, accounting for more than 20% of all infant mortalities. Rapid technological advances have seen the original singular newborn screen for phenylketonuria expand to a core set of 34 conditions and an additional 26 secondary conditions on the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel, with wide state-to-state variation for implementation. As genomic analysis evolves to enable next-generation sequencing, debates continue over the ethical, legal, and social implications of identifying conditions for which there is no effective treatment. Nurse practitioners should be engaged and informed in providing evidence-based support to families engaging in ethical complex decision making surrounding newborn screening while effectively balancing risk-benefit analysis with individual beliefs and values.</p>","PeriodicalId":48812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners","volume":"33 7","pages":"492-495"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical implications of next-generation sequencing and the future of newborn screening.\",\"authors\":\"Shelley White-Corey,&nbsp;Jessica L Peck,&nbsp;Rosa I Pérez\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JXX.0000000000000631\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Over the last 50 years, routine newborn blood screening for congenital disorders has been hailed as a miracle of modern science, saving countless lives by providing a means to detect and treat life-threatening disorders before symptoms present. Despite progress made with more than 5,000 babies effectively identified with rare conditions each year, congenital anomalies collectively remain at the top of the list as the cause of death for babies under 1 year of age, accounting for more than 20% of all infant mortalities. Rapid technological advances have seen the original singular newborn screen for phenylketonuria expand to a core set of 34 conditions and an additional 26 secondary conditions on the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel, with wide state-to-state variation for implementation. As genomic analysis evolves to enable next-generation sequencing, debates continue over the ethical, legal, and social implications of identifying conditions for which there is no effective treatment. Nurse practitioners should be engaged and informed in providing evidence-based support to families engaging in ethical complex decision making surrounding newborn screening while effectively balancing risk-benefit analysis with individual beliefs and values.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners\",\"volume\":\"33 7\",\"pages\":\"492-495\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000631\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000631","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:在过去的50年里,新生儿先天性疾病的常规血液筛查被誉为现代科学的奇迹,通过在症状出现之前发现和治疗危及生命的疾病,挽救了无数生命。尽管取得了进展,每年有5 000多名婴儿被有效地确诊为罕见疾病,但先天性异常仍然是导致1岁以下婴儿死亡的首要原因,占所有婴儿死亡率的20%以上。快速的技术进步使苯丙酮尿新生儿单一筛查扩大到推荐统一筛查小组的34种核心条件和另外26种次要条件,各州之间的实施差异很大。随着基因组分析的发展使下一代测序成为可能,关于确定没有有效治疗的疾病的伦理、法律和社会影响的争论仍在继续。护士从业人员应该参与并了解如何为家庭提供基于证据的支持,这些家庭参与围绕新生儿筛查的复杂伦理决策,同时有效地平衡风险-收益分析与个人信仰和价值观。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Ethical implications of next-generation sequencing and the future of newborn screening.

Abstract: Over the last 50 years, routine newborn blood screening for congenital disorders has been hailed as a miracle of modern science, saving countless lives by providing a means to detect and treat life-threatening disorders before symptoms present. Despite progress made with more than 5,000 babies effectively identified with rare conditions each year, congenital anomalies collectively remain at the top of the list as the cause of death for babies under 1 year of age, accounting for more than 20% of all infant mortalities. Rapid technological advances have seen the original singular newborn screen for phenylketonuria expand to a core set of 34 conditions and an additional 26 secondary conditions on the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel, with wide state-to-state variation for implementation. As genomic analysis evolves to enable next-generation sequencing, debates continue over the ethical, legal, and social implications of identifying conditions for which there is no effective treatment. Nurse practitioners should be engaged and informed in providing evidence-based support to families engaging in ethical complex decision making surrounding newborn screening while effectively balancing risk-benefit analysis with individual beliefs and values.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners
Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-NURSING
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
172
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (JAANP) is a monthly peer-reviewed professional journal that serves as the official publication of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. Published since 1989, the JAANP provides a strong clinical focus with articles related to primary, secondary, and tertiary care, nurse practitioner education, health policy, ethics and ethical issues, and health care delivery. The journal publishes original research, integrative/comprehensive reviews, case studies, a variety of topics in clinical practice, and theory-based articles related to patient and professional education. Although the majority of nurse practitioners function in primary care, there is an increasing focus on the provision of care across all types of systems from acute to long-term care settings.
期刊最新文献
Unregulated male sexual enhancement treatments: Perils and pitfalls for patients and providers Enhancing competency-based assessment: Implementing oral boards in nursing education Enhancing foot care education and support strategies in adults with type 2 diabetes: A qualitative study The important primary care role of neonatal nurse practitioners in the neonatal intensive care unit. Bridging the education-practice gap: Changing nurse practitioner skills through education innovation.
×
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