Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pediatrics
Published in: BMC Pediatrics 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Healthcare professionals’ and parents’ experiences of the confirmatory testing period: a qualitative study of the UK expanded newborn screening pilot

Authors: Louise Moody, Lou Atkinson, Isher Kehal, James R. Bonham

Published in: BMC Pediatrics | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

With further expansion of the number of conditions for which newborn screening can be undertaken, it is timely to consider the impact of positive screening results and the confirmatory testing period on the families involved. This study was undertaken as part of a larger programme of work to evaluate the Expanded Newborn Screening (ENBS) programme in the United Kingdom (UK). It was aimed to determine the views and experiences of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and parents on communication and interaction during the period of confirmatory testing following a positive screening result.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with parents of children who had received a positive ENBS result and HCPs who had been involved with the diagnosis and support of parents. Ten parents and 11 healthcare professionals took part in the in-depth interviews. Questions considered the journey from the positive screening result through confirmatory testing to a confirmed diagnosis and the communication and interaction between the parents and HCPs that they had been experienced. Key themes were identified through thematic analysis.

Results

The results point to a number of elements within the path through confirmatory testing that are difficult for parents and could be further developed to improve the experience. These include the way in which the results are communicated to parents, rapid turnaround of results, offering a consistent approach, exploring interventions to support family relationships and reviewing the workload and scheduling implications for healthcare professionals.

Conclusions

As technology enables newborn screening of a larger number of conditions, there is an increasing need to consider and mediate the potentially negative effects on families. The findings from this study point to a number of elements within the path through confirmatory testing that are difficult for parents and could be further developed to benefit the family experience.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Schoen EJ, Baker JC, Colby CJ, To TT. Cost-benefit analysis of universal tandem mass spectrometry for newborn screening. Pediatrics. 2002;110(4):781–6.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Prosser LA, Kong CY, Rusinak D, Waisbren S.L. Projected costs, risks, and benefits of expanded newborn screening for MCADD. Pediatrics 2010; 125(2): e286–e294.
3.
Farrell MH, Christopher SA, Tluczek A, Kennedy-Parker K, La Pean A, Eskra K, et al. Improving communication between doctors and parents after newborn screening. WMJ 2011; Oct;110(5):221–227. PubMed Epub 2011/12/15. eng.
4.
Edison MA, Eaton M, Paul SP. Newborn screening in the UK. J Fam Health. 2015;26(2):18–22.
5.
Lemonde H, Cleary M, Chakrapani A. Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism. Paediatr Child Health. 2015;25(3):103–7.CrossRef
6.
7.
Waisbren SE, Albers S, Amato S, Ampola M, Brewster TG, Demmer L, Eaton RB, et al. Effect of expanded newborn screening for biochemical genetic disorders on child outcomes and parental stress. JAMA. 2003;19:2564–72.CrossRef
8.
Bailey D, Skinner D, Davis AM, Whitmarsh I, Powell C. Ethical, legal, and social concerns about expanded newborn screening: fragile X syndrome as a prototype for emerging issues. Pediatrics. 2008;121(3):e693–704.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Petticrew MP, Sowden AJ, Lister-Sharp D, Wright K. False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(5):1–120.PubMed
10.
Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant LD, Cuckle HS. Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–109.
11.
Schulz A, Lindner M, Kohlmuller D, Oatharina K, Mayatepek E, et al. Expanded newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism by electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry: results, outcome, and implications. Pediatrics. 2003;111:1399–406.CrossRef
12.
Collins JL, La Pean A, O’Tool F, Eskra KL, Roedl SJ, Tluczek A, et al. Factors that influence parents’ experiences with results disclosure after newborn screening identifies genetic carrier status for cystic fibrosis or sickle cell hemoglobinopathy. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90(3):378–85.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Salm A, Yetter E, Tluczek A. Informing parents about positive newbron screening results: parents’ recommendations. J Child Health Care. 2012;16(4):367–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Tluczek A, Chevalier McKechnie A, Lynam PA. Modified uncertainty theory and parents’ perspectives about equivocal diagnostic results for cystic fibrosis. Qual Health Res. 2010;20(2):209–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
16.
Chudleigh J, Buckingham S, Dignan J, O’Driscoll S, Johnson K, Rees D, Wyatt H, Metcalfe A. Parents’ experiences of receiving the initial positive newborn screening (NBS) result for cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. J Genet Couns. 2016;20:1–2.
17.
Tluczek A, Mischler EH, Bowers B, Peterson NM, Morris ME, Farrell PM, et al. Psychological impact of false-positive results when screening for cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol Suppl 1991;7:29–37. PubMed.
18.
Buchbinder M, Timmermans S. Newborn screening for metabolic disorders: parental perceptions of the initial communication of results. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2012;51(8):739–744. PubMed Epub 2012/05/09. eng.
19.
DeLuca JM, Kearney MH, Norton SA, Arnold GL. Parents’ experiences of expanded newborn screening evaluations. Pediatrics 2011 Jul;128(1):53–61. PubMed Epub 2011/06/29. eng.
20.
Gurian EA, Kinnamon DD, Henry JJ, Waisbren SE. Expanded newborn screening for biochemical disorders: the effect of a false-positive result. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1915–21.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kai J, Ulph F, Cullinan T, Qureshi N. Communication of carrier status information following universal newborn screening for sickle cell disorders and cystic fibrosis: qualitative study of experience and practice. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(57):1–82, iii. PubMed Epub 2009/12/02. eng.
22.
23.
Therrell BL, Padilla CD, Loeber JG, Kneisser I, Saadallah A, Borrajo GJ, Adams J. Current status of newborn screening worldwide. Semin Perinatol. 2015;39(3):171–87.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Filiano JJ, Bellimer SG, Kunz PL. Tandem mass spectrometry and newborn screening: pilot data and review. Pediatr Neurol. 2002;26(3):201–4.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Ficicioglu C, Thomas N, Yager C, Gallagher PR, Hussa C, Mattie A, Day-Salvatore DL, Forbes BJ. Duarte (DG) galactosemia: a pilot study of biochemical and neurodevelopmental assessment in children detected by newborn screening. Mol Genet Metab. 2008;95(4):206–12.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Oerton J, Khalid JM, Besley G, Dalton RN, Downing M, Green A, Henderson M, Krywawych S, Leonard J, Andresen BS, Dezateux C. Newborn screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency in England: prevalence, predictive value and test validity based on 1.5 million screened babies. J Med Screen. 2011;18(4):173–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
28.
Davis TC, Humiston SG, Arnold CL, Bocchini JA, Bass PF, Kennen EM, et al. Recommendations for effective newborn screening communication: results of focus groups with parents, providers, and experts. Paediatrics. 2006;117:326–40.CrossRef
29.
Schmidt JL, Castellanos-Brown K, Childress S, Bonhomme N, Oktay JS, Terry SF, Kyler P, Davidoff A, Greene C. The impact of false-positive newborn screening results on families: a qualitative study. Genet Med. 2012;14(1):76–80.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Bate P, Robert G. Experience-based design: from redesigning the system around the patient to co-designing services with the patient. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(5):307–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Locock L, Kai J. Parents’ experiences of universal screening for haemoglobin disorders: implications for practice in a new genetics era. Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58(548):161–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Healthcare professionals’ and parents’ experiences of the confirmatory testing period: a qualitative study of the UK expanded newborn screening pilot
Authors
Louise Moody
Lou Atkinson
Isher Kehal
James R. Bonham
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pediatrics / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2431
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-017-0873-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Pediatrics 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Pathogenic bacteria distributions and drug resistance analysis in 96 cases of neonatal sepsis

Research article

Celiac disease and Down syndrome mortality: a nationwide cohort study

Research article

Low birth weight contributed to increased serum IL-6 levels in infantile respiratory syncytial virus infection

Research article

Descriptive analysis of cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews: an update and comparison between 2009 and 2013

Case report

My child cannot breathe while sleeping: a report of three cases and review

Study protocol

Quality of life and trust among young people with narcolepsy and their families, after the Pandemrix® vaccination: protocol for a case-control study