Perceived Benefits, Risks, and Utility of Newborn Genomic Sequencing in the BabySeq Project

Author:

Pereira Stacey1,Robinson Jill Oliver1,Gutierrez Amanda M.1,Petersen Devan K.1,Hsu Rebecca L.1,Lee Caroline H.1,Schwartz Talia S.23,Holm Ingrid A.23,Beggs Alan H.23,Green Robert C.3456,McGuire Amy L.1,

Affiliation:

1. Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas;

2. Division of Genetics and Genomics, The Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research, Boston Children’s Hospital;

3. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts;

4. Division of Genetics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts;

5. Partners Healthcare Personalized Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and

6. Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is interest in applying genomic sequencing (GS) to newborns’ clinical care. Here we explore parents’ and clinicians’ attitudes toward and perceptions of the risks, benefits, and utility of newborn GS compared with newborn screening (NBS) prior to receiving study results. METHODS: The BabySeq Project is a randomized controlled trial used to explore the impact of integrating GS into the clinical care of newborns. Parents (n = 493) of enrolled infants (n = 309) and clinicians (n = 144) completed a baseline survey at enrollment. We examined between-group differences in perceived utility and attitudes toward NBS and GS. Open-ended responses about risks and benefits of each technology were categorized by theme. RESULTS: The majority of parents (71%) and clinicians (51%) agreed that there are health benefits of GS, although parents and clinicians agreed more that there are risks associated with GS (35%, 70%) than with NBS (19%, 39%; all P < .05). Parents perceived more benefit and less risk of GS than did clinicians. Clinicians endorsed concerns about privacy and discrimination related to genomic information more strongly than did parents, and parents anticipated benefits of GS that clinicians did not. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and clinicians are less confident in GS than NBS, but parents perceive a more favorable risk/benefit ratio of GS than do clinicians. Clinicians should be aware that parents’ optimism may stem from their perceived benefits beyond clinical utility.

Publisher

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

Subject

Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

Reference31 articles.

1. Whole-genome screening of newborns? The constitutional boundaries of state newborn screening programs.;King;Pediatrics,2016

2. Ethical issues in pediatric genetic testing and screening.;Botkin;Curr Opin Pediatr,2016

3. Serving the family from birth to the medical home. A report from the Newborn Screening Task Force convened in Washington DC, May 10-11, 1999.;Pediatrics,2000

4. Genomic newborn screening: public health policy considerations and recommendations.;Friedman;BMC Med Genomics,2017

5. Rapid whole-genome sequencing for genetic disease diagnosis in neonatal intensive care units.;Saunders;Sci Transl Med,2012

Cited by 48 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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3