↓ Skip to main content

Policy Making in Newborn Screening Needs a Structured and Transparent Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Policy Making in Newborn Screening Needs a Structured and Transparent Approach
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00053
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marleen E. Jansen, Karla J. Lister, Henk J. van Kranen, Martina C. Cornel

Abstract

Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) programs have expanded significantly in the past years and are expected to expand further with the emergence of genetic technologies. Historically, NBS expansion has often occurred following ad hoc consideration of conditions, instead of a structured and transparent approach. In this review, we explore issues pertinent to NBS policy making, through the lens of the policy cycle: (a) agenda setting, (b) policy advice, (c) policy decision, (d) implementation, and (e) evaluation. A literature search was conducted to gather information on the elements specific to NBS and its policy making process. The review highlighted two approaches to nominate a condition: a structured approach through horizon scanning; and an ad hoc process. For assessment of a condition, there was unanimous support for a robust process based on criteria. While the need to assess harms and benefits was a repeated theme in the articles, there is no agreed-upon threshold for benefit in decision-making. Furthermore, the literature was consistent in its recommendation for an overarching, independent, multidisciplinary group providing recommendations to government. An implementation plan focusing on the different levels on which NBS operates and the information needed on each level is essential for successful implementation. Continuously monitoring, and improving a program is vital, particularly following the implementation of screening for a new condition. An advisory committee could advise on implementation, development, review, modification, and cessation of (parts of) NBS. The results highlight that there are a wave of issues facing NBS programs that policy makers must take into account when developing policy processes. What conditions to screen, and the technologies used in NBS, are both up for debate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 15 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,539,663
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,804
of 10,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,447
of 309,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#63
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.