Newborn blood spot screening in four countries: Stakeholder involvement

Journal of Public Health Policy

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 121-142

  Potter, Beth K ^a   Avard, Denise ^b,c   Wilson, Brenda J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c Genetics and Society Project

Author keywords

Neonatal screening; Policy development; Stakeholder involvement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLOOD SAMPLING; CONSUMER; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN SCREENING; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; STANDARD;

BLOOD SPECIMEN COLLECTION; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; NEONATAL SCREENING; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 41249098719     PISSN: 01975897     EISSN: 1745655X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200161     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Pollitt RJ, Green A, McCabe CJ, Booth A, Cooper NJ, Leonard JV, et al. Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: cost, yield and outcome. Health Technol Assess. 199751(7).
2. Kerruish NJ, Robertson SP. Newborn screening: new developments, new dilemmas. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:393-8.
3. Therrell Jr BL. U.S. newborn screening policy dilemmas for the twenty-first century. Mol Genet Metab. 2001;74:64-74.
4. Wilfond BS, Parad RB, Fost N. Balancing benefits and risks for cystic fibrosis newborn screening: implications for policy decisions. J Pediatr. 2005;147:8109-13.
5. Wilcken B. Mini-Symposium: newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism-clinical effectiveness. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2006;29:366-9.
6. Watson MS, Lloyd-Puryear MA, Mann MY, Rinaldo P, Howell RR editors, ACMG Newborn Screening Expert Group. Newborn screening: toward a uniform screening panel and system. Genet Med. 2006;8(1):1S-252S.
7. Green NS, Dolan SM, Murray TH. Newborn screening: complexities in universal genetic testing. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:1955-9.
8. 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.
9. Grosse SD, Boyle CA, Kenneson A, Khoury MJ, Wilfond BS. From public health emergency to public health service: the implications of evolving criteria for newborn screening panels. Pediatrics. 2006; 117:923-9.
10. Waisbren SE, Albers S, Amato S, Ampola M, Brewster TG, Demmer L, et al. Effect of expanded newborn screening for biochemical genetic disorders on child outcomes and parental stress. JAMA. 2003;290:2564-72.
11. Grosse SD, Boyle CA, Botkin JR, Comeau AM, Kharrazi M, Rosenfeld M, et al. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: evaluation of benefits and risks and recommendations for state newborn screening programs. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2004;53:1-36.
12. Avard D, Kharaboyan L, Knoppers BM. Newborn screening for sickle cell disease: socio-ethical implications. In: McLean, SAM editor. First Do No Harm: Law, Ethics and Healthcare. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd; 2006, Chapter 31.
13. Oliver S, Dezateux C, Kavanagh J, Lempert T, Stewart R. Disclosing to parents newborn carrier status identified by routine blood spot screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; CD003859.
14. Comeau AM, Accurso FJ, White TB, Campbell III PW, Hoffman G, Parad RB, et al. Guidelines for implementation of cystic fibrosis newborn screening programs: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation workshop report. Pediatrics. 2007;119:6495-518.
15. Grosse SD, Olney RS, Baily MA. The cost effectiveness of universal versus selective newborn screening for sickle cell disease in the US and the UK: a critique. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4:239-47.
16. Pollitt RJ. International perspectives on newborn screening. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2006;29:390-6.
17. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:239-51.
18. Ard CF, Natowicz MR. A seat at the table: membership in federal advisory committees evaluating public policy in genetics. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:787-90.
19. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321:1300-1.
20. Gollust SE, Apse K, Fuller BP, Miller PS, Biesecker BB. Community involvement in developing policies for genetic testing: assessing the interests and experiences of individuals affected by genetic conditions. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:35-41.
21. Hiller EH, Landenburger G, Natowicz MR. Public participation in medical policy-making and the status of consumer autonomy: the example of newborn-screening programs in the United States. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:1280-8.
22. Kelson M. The NICE patient involvement unit. Evidence-Based Healthcare & Public Health. 2005;9:304-7.
23. Elliman DA, Dezateux C, Bedford HE. Newborn and childhood screening programmes: criteria, evidence, and current policy. Arch Dis Child. 2002;87:6-9.
24. UK National Screening Committee. Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme. 2003. Available at www.nsc.nhs.uk, accessed 1 October 2007.
25. UK National Screening Committee. Website. Available at www.nsc.nhs.uk, accessed 1 October 2007.
26. UK Newborn Screening Programme Centre. Website (see various documents regarding program standards and their development). Available at www.newbornscreening-bloodspot.org.uk, accessed 1 October 2007.
27. NHS Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Screening Programme. Newborn screening. Available at www.sickleandthal.org.uk/newborn.htm, accessed 1 October 2007.
28. Department of Health. New screening test for all babies to be introduced; 2007. Available at www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/Full Detail.asp?ReleaseID=262490&NewsAreaID-2&NavigatedFromDepartment-False, accessed 1 October 2007.
29. Clarke A. The genetic testing of children. Working party of the Clinical Genetics Society (UK). J Med Genet. 1994;31:785-97.
30. Dalby S. GIG response to the UK Clinical Genetics Society report "The genetic testing of children". J Med Genet. 1995;32:490-491.
31. American Academy of Pediatrics. Serving the family from birth to the medical home. Newborn screening: a blueprint for the future - a call for a national agenda on state newborn screening programs. Pediatrics. 2000;106:389-427.
32. Therrell BL, Adams J. Newborn screening in North America. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2007;30:447-65.
33. National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center. National newborn screening status report. U.S. National screening status report. Updated 09/26/07. Available at: http://genes-r-us.uthscsa.edu/, accessed 1 October 2007.
34. Howell RR. Advisory committee on heritable disorders and genetic diseases in newborns and children. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2006;12:313-5.
35. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: a paradigm for public health genetics policy development. Proceedings of a 1997 workshop. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1997;46:1-24.
36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Using tandem mass spectrometry for metabolic disease screening among newborns. A report of a work group. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001;50:1-34.
37. Therrell BL, Johnson A, Williams D. Status of newborn screening programs in the United States. Pediatrics. 2006;117:S212-52.
38. Natowicz MR, Hiller EH. Addressing consumer grievances in medicine: policies and practices of newborn screening programs in the United States. Genet Test. 2002;6:31-8.
39. Black H. Newborn screening report sparks debate in USA. Lancet. 2005;365:1453-4.
40. Botkin JR, Clayton EW, Fost NC, Burke W, Murray TH, Baily MA, et al. Newborn screening technology: proceed with caution. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1793-9.
41. Howell RR. We need expanded newborn screening. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1800-5.
42. American Society of Human Genetics and American College of Medical Genetics. Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors.. Am J Hum Genet. 1995;57:1233-41.
43. Nelson RM, Botkjin JR, Kodish ED, Levetown M, Truman JT, Wilfond BS, et al. Ethical issues with genetic testing in pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2001;107:1451-5. (Note: statement reaffirmed in October 2004; see May 2005 issue).
44. Lloyd-Puryear MA, Tonniges T, van Dyck PC, Mann MY, Brin A, Johnson K, et al. American Academy of Pediatrics Newborn Screening Task Force recommendations: how far have we come? Pediatrics. 2006;117:S194-211.
45. Terry SF. Public testimony to Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders and Genetic Diseases in Newborns and Children. Genetic Alliance; 2004. Available at http://www.geneticalliance.org/ws_display.asp? filter=%7B03333436%2DD71E%2D4554%2D93A0%2DDE88FA87B037%7D, accessed 1 October 2007.
46. Terry SF. Comments submitted by Genetic Alliance to the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders and Genetic Diseases in Newborns and Children. "We must ensure that all newborns have access to appropriate and effective screening programs". Genetic Alliance; 2005. Available at http://www.geneticalliance.org/ws_display. asp?filter= %7B35CD2C75%2D98C7%2D41F1%2D988F%2D92C048FCB472%7D, accessed 1 October 2007.
47. Howse JL, Weiss M, Green NS. Critical role of the March of Dimes in the expansion of newborn screening. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2006;12:280-7.
48. Howse JL, Katz M. The importance of newborn screening. Pediatrics. 2000;106:695.
49. March of Dimes. March of Dimes statement on newborn screening report. 2004. Available at www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/10651_13507.asp, accessed 1 October 2007.
50. March of Dimes. Professionals and researchers. Quick references and fact sheets. Recommended newborn screening tests: 29 disorders. Available at www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_15455.asp, accessed 1 October 2007.
51. Campbell III PW, White TB. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: an opportunity to improve care and outcomes. J Pediatr. 2005;147:82-5.
52. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Website (various statements). Available at www.cff.org, accessed 1 October 2007.
53. National Public Health Partnership. An overview of public health surveillance of genetic disorders and mapping of current genetic screening services in Australia. 2002; Available at http://www.nphp.gov.au/ publications/genetics/genetic_mapping.pdf, accessed 1 October 2007.
54. Wilcken B, Haas M, Joy P, Wiley V, Chaplin M, Black C, et al. Outcome of neonatal screening for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency in Australia: a cohort study. Lancet. 2007;369:37-42.
55. Human Genetics Society of Australasia and Royal Australasian College of Physicians Newborn Screening Joint Subcommittee. HGSA policy statement 2004. Newborn blood-spot screening. 2004. Available at http://www.hgsa.com.au/, accessed 1 October 2007.
56. Human Genetics Society of Australasia and Royal Australasian College of Physicians Newborn Screening Joint Subcommittee. Policy statement on the retention, storage and use of sample cards from newborn screening programs. Available at http://www.hgsa.com.au/, accessed 1 October 2007.
57. Muchamore I, Morphett L, Barlow-Stewart K. Exploring existing and deliberated community perspectives of newborn screening: informing the development of state and national policy standards in newborn screening and the use of dried blood spots. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2006;53:14.
58. Australian Law Reform Commission. ALRC 96 Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia. 2003. Available at www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/96/, accessed 1 October 2007.
59. Department of Health and Aging. Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee report. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia. Government response to recommendations. 2003. Available at www.health.gov. au/internet/wcms/ publishing.nsf/Content/humangenetics.htm, accessed 1 October 2007.
60. Brameld K. Paper: Framework for adding new tests for conditions within the newborn screening protocol. Office of Population Health Genomics, Government of Western Australia, Department of
61. Health; 2006. Available at http://www.genomics.health.wa.gov. au/publications/docs/Newbom_Screening_Framework.pdf, accessed 1 October 2007.
62. Hanley WB. Newborn screening in Canada - Are we out of step? Paediatrics and Child Health. 2005;10:203-7.
63. National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center. Newborn screening in Canada status report. Updated 11 May 2007. Available at http://genes-r-us.uthscsa.edu/, accessed 1 October 2007.
64. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Backgrounder: McGuinty government expands newborn screening program. 2005; Available at http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/media/news_releases/archives/nr_05/ bg_090705.pdf, accessed 1 October 2007.
65. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Backgrounder (2): McGuinty government expands newborn screening program. 2005. Available at http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/media/news_releases/archives/nr_o5/ bg_110205.pdf, accessed 1 October 2007.
66. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Backgrounder. Cystic fibrosis and newborn screening. 2006. Available at www.health.gov.on.ca/ english/media/news_releases/archives/nr_06/nov/bg_112306. pdf, accessed 1 October 2007.
67. Government of Alberta. New programs promote better health for children and youth. 2006. Available at www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200609/20573F516B93A-F6B0- E6D2-5886A88B8708BC9D.html, accessed i October 2007;98:284-86.
68. Eggertson L. Canada lags on newborn screening. CMAJ. 20055173:23.
69. Avard D, Vallance H, Greenberg C, Potter B. Newborn screening by tandem mass spectrometry: Ethical and social issues. Can J Public Health. 2007; 98:284-86.
70. Health Canada. Family-centred maternity and newborn care: National guidelines. 2000. Available at http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dca-dea/prenatal/ fcmci_e.html, accessed 1 October 2007: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dca-dea/ pdfa_Zenglish.html#fi4.
71. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Website. Available at www.ctfphc.org/, accessed 1 October 2007.
72. Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. Position statement - genetic testing of children. Available at http://ccmg.medical.org/, accessed i October 2007.
73. Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. CF testing/screening statement. Available at http://ccmg.medical.org/, accessed 1 October 2007.
74. Canadian Paediatric Society. Guidelines for genetic testing of healthy children. Position statement (B 2003-01). Paediatr Child Health. 2003;8:42-5.
75. Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. CCFF commends Alberta Health and Wellness' landmark decision to screen newborns for CF. 2006. Available at www.cysticfibrosis.ca/news.asp?id=368, accessed 1 October 2007.
76. Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. CCFF commends the government of Ontario's decision to screen newborns for CF. 2006. Available at www.cysticfibrosis.ca/news.asp?id=387, accessed 1 October 2007.
77. Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders. Position statement on newborn screening September 27, 2005, as quoted in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on September 28, 2005. Available at http://www. ontla.on.ca/ committee-proceedings/transcripts/files_pdf/2005-09-28_ pdfT016.pdf, accessed 1 October 2007(see statement from John Adams, representative of the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders).
78. Gauvin FP, Abelson J. Primer on Public Involvement. Health Council of Canada, 2006. Available at www.healthcouncilcanada.ca, accessed 1 October 2007. ISBN 0-9739726-2-9 2.
79. Leroux T, Hirtle M, Fortin LN. An overview of public consultation mechanisms developed to address the ethical and social issues raised by biotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy. 1998;21:445-81.
80. Tritter JQ, McCallum A. The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Amstein. Health Policy. 2006;76:156-68.
81. Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod CB, Collins P, McMullan C, Forest PG. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003;66:95-106.
82. Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ. 1999;318:916-9.
83. Marin A. The right to be impatient. Whether the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has failed to properly administer Newborn Screening in Ontario. Ombudsman report. Ombudsman of Ontario, 2005. Available at http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/UploadFiles/File/PDF/TheRightToBeImpatient_REPORT. pdf, accessed 1 October 2007.
84. Kenny N, Giacomini M. Wanted: a new ethics field for health policy analysis. Health Care Anal. 2005;13:247-60.