Affiliation:
1. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, University of Chicago Comer Children's Hospital, and LaRabida Children's Hospital and at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
2. Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University, Maywood, Illinois
3. Department of Pediatrics, Section of General Pediatrics, and MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Abstract
Objective. Traditional population screening focuses on conditions for which early treatment prevents severe morbidity and mortality. The classic example in pediatrics is newborn screening for phenylketonuria, which began in the 1960s. In 1968, Wilson and Jungner delineated 10 criteria that would justify population screening. These criteria have been reaffirmed by many newborn screening task forces as the standard for adding conditions to newborn screening programs. Today, however, some newborn screening programs are expanding to include conditions that may not meet all of the traditional screening criteria. Little is known about pediatricians' attitudes toward expanding screening. We examine the attitudes of pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists toward screening for cystic fibrosis (CF), Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), fragile X, and type 1 diabetes.
Methods. A cross-sectional survey was conducted of 600 pediatricians, including those who are members of the section of genetics, endocrinology, pulmonology, and neurology of the American Academy of Pediatrics. For each condition, pediatricians were queried about (1) testing high-risk infants, (2) newborn screening, and (3) population screening or testing beyond the newborn period. Demographic data were also collected.
Results. A total of 232 (43%) of 537 eligible pediatricians returned surveys. More than 75% support testing high-risk infants for all conditions except type 1 diabetes. CF was the only condition for which >50% supported newborn screening. Newborn screening was preferred over screening older infants for all conditions except fragile X. Subspecialty affiliation did not have a significant impact with respect to attitudes about testing high-risk children, newborn screening, or screening beyond infancy. We analyzed the data by the number of patients with the queried condition under the physician's care and by the number of affected family members. Neither aspect was significant. We also analyzed the data by gender, by year of residency graduation, and by geographic location. None of these factors revealed significant differences in responses. For each condition, 8% to 41% of physicians would personally choose to test their own infant. We found that physicians' opinion about what they would want for their own children correlated with their attitude about population newborn screening. Those who would personally choose testing of their own infants were highly likely to support newborn screening for CF (98%), DMD (94%), and fragile X (98%), but only 78% of those who would personally opt for newborn screening of type 1 diabetes would also endorse population-based screening. This was statistically significant for each condition. Those who would choose not to test their own infants were significantly less likely to support newborn screening of the general population. One third of those who did not want to test their own newborns for CF supported population screening, whereas only one fifth supported DMD and fragile X population screening. For type 1 diabetes, 98% of those who would not personally choose newborn testing did not want it offered as a population screening program.
Conclusions. Most physicians support diagnostic genetic testing of high-risk children but are less supportive of expanding newborn screening, particularly for conditions that do not meet the Wilson and Jungner criteria. Willingness to expand newborn screening does not correlate with professional characteristics but rather with personal interest in testing of their own children.
Publisher
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
Subject
Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
Reference62 articles.
1. Guthrie R. The origin of newborn screening. Screening. 1992;1:5–15
2. Committee for the Study of Inborn Errors of Metabolism, Division of Medical Sciences, Assembly of Life Sciences, National Research Council. Genetic Screening: Programs, Principles, and Research. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1975
3. Reilly P. Genetics, Law and Social Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1977
4. Wilson JMG, Jungner F. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. Public Health Papers, no. 34. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1968
5. Andrews LB, Fullerton JE, Holtzman NH, Motulsky M. Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Heath and Social Policy. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1994
Cited by
45 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献