Parental attitudes regarding newborn screening of PKU and DMD

American Journal of Medical Genetics

Volumn 120 A, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 209-214

  Campbell, Elizabeth ^a   Ross, Lainie Friedman ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Childhood onset conditions; Duchenne muscular dystrophy; Genetic screening; Informed consent; Newborn screening; Parental attitudes; Predictive testing; Right to know

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CHILD; DECISION MAKING; DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN SCREENING; PARENT; PATIENT INFORMATION; PHENYLKETONURIA; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

EID: 0041321420     PISSN: 15524825     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.20031     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Bioethics. 2001. Ethical issues with genetic testing in pediatrics. Pediatrics 107:1451-1455.
2. American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG)/American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG). 1995. Points to consider: Ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am J Hum Genet 57:1233-1241.
3. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W. 1987. False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings 17(2):20-24.
4. Beaulieu MD, Hudon E, Roberge D, Pineault R, Forte D, Legare J. 1999. Practice guidelines for clinical prevention: Do patients, physicians, and experts share common ground? CMAJ 161:519-523.
5. Billings PR, Kohn MA, de Cuevas M, Beckwith J, Alper JS, Natowicz MR. 1992. Discrimination as a consequence ofgenetic testing. Am J Hum Genet 50:476-482.
6. Bushy KMD, Hill A, Steele JG. 1999. Failure of early diagnosis in symptomatic Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Lancet 353:557-558.
7. Campbell E, Ross LF. Parental attitudes and beliefs regarding the genetic testing of children. (In review).
8. Carey MA, Smith MW. 1994. Capturing the group effect in focus groups: A special concern for analysis. Qual Health Res 4:123-127.
9. Channock SJ, Kundra V, Johnson FL, Singer MD. 1997. The other side of the bed: What care givers can learn from listening to patients and their families. In: Pizzo P, Poplack D, editors. Principles and practice of pediatric oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven. p. 1267-1282.
10. Clarke AJ. 1997. Newborn screening. In: Harper PS, Clarke AJ, editors. Genetics, society, and clinical practice. Oxford, UK: Bios Scientific Publishers. p. 107-117.
11. Clayton EW. 1999. What should be the role of public health in newborn screening and prenatal diagnosis? Am J Prev Med 16:111-115.
12. Dalby S. 1995. GIG [Genetic Interest Group] response to the UK Clinical Genetics Society report 'The genetic testing of children.' J Med Genet 32:490-492.
13. Faden R, Chwalow J, Holtzman NA, Horn SD. 1982. A survey to evaluate parental consent as public policy for neonatal screening. Am J Public Health 72:1350.
14. Flanders G, Graves P, Rewers M. 1999. Review: Prevention of type, 1 diabetes from laboratory to public health. Autoimmunity 29:235-246.
15. Geller LN, Alper JS, Billings PR, Barash CI, Beckwith J, Natowicz MR. 1996. Individual, family, and societal dimensions of genetic discrimination: A case study analysis. Sci Eng Ethics 2:71-88.
16. Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1994. Assessing genetic risks: Implications for health and social policy. Washington DC: National Academy Press. 338p.
17. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A. 1998. Drawing the line: An analysis of lay people's discussions about the new genetics. Public Understand Sci 7:113-133.
18. Marshall PD, Galasko CSB. 1995. No improvement in delay of diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Lancet 345:590-591.
19. Marteau TM. 1995. Toward an understanding of the psychological consequences of screening. In: Croyle RT. Psychosocial effects of screening for disease prevention and detection. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 185-199.
20. Marteau TM, Croyle RT. 1998. The new genetics: Psychological responses to genetic testing. BMJ 316:693-696.
21. Meiser B, Dunn S. 2000. Psychological impact of genetic testing for Huntington's disease: An update of the literature. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 69:574-578.
22. Parsons EP, Clarke AJ, Hood K, Lycett E, Bradley DM. 2002. Newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A psychosocial study. Arch Disease Child Fetal Neonat Ed 86:F91-F95.
23. Robertson S, Savulescu J. 2001. Is there a case in favour ofpredictive genetic testing in young children? Bioethics 15:26-49.
24. Ross LF. 2002. Predictive genetic testing for conditions that present in childhood. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 12:225-244.
25. St. Petersburg Times. 2002. Infant diabetes test is good start. (Editorial) p. 8A.
26. Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN. 1990. Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 153p.
27. Wertz D. 2002. Testing children and adolescents. In: Burley J, Harris J, editors. A companion to genethics. Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishers. p. 92-113.
28. Working Party of the Clinical Genetics Society (UK). 1994. The genetic testing of children. J Med Genet 31:785-797.