↓ Skip to main content

Putting a value on the avoidance of false positive results when screening for inherited metabolic disease in the newborn

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Putting a value on the avoidance of false positive results when screening for inherited metabolic disease in the newborn
Published in
Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease, May 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10545-011-9354-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Dixon, Phil Shackley, Jim Bonham, Rachel Ibbotson

Abstract

Despite the increase in the number of inherited metabolic diseases that can be detected at birth using a single dried blood spot sample, the impact of false positive results on parents remains a concern. We used an economic approach - the contingent valuation method - which asks parents to give their maximum willingness to pay for an extension in a screening programme and the degree to which the potential for false positive results diminishes their valuations. 160 parents of a child or children under the age of 16 years were surveyed and given descriptions of the current screening programme in the UK, an extended programme and an extended programme with no false positives. 148 (92.5%) respondents said they would accept the screen for the five extra conditions in an expanded screening programme whilst 10 (6.3%) said they would not and two were unsure. When asked to indicate if they would choose to be screened under an expanded screening programme with no false positive results, 152 (95%) said they would, five (3.1%) said they would not, two were unsure, and there was one non-response. 151 (94.4%) said they preferred the hypothetical test with no false-positives. The mean willingness to pay for the expanded programme was £178 compared to £219 for the hypothetical expanded programme without false positives (p > 0.05). The results suggest that there is widespread parental support for extended screening in the UK and that the number of false-positives is a relatively small issue.

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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 7%
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 25 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 18%
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 06 February 2013.
All research outputs
#15,262,171
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease
#1,465
of 1,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,856
of 112,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease
#14
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,834 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 112,049 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.