↓ Skip to main content

Screening criteria: the need to deal with new developments and ethical issues in newborn metabolic screening

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Genetics, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Screening criteria: the need to deal with new developments and ethical issues in newborn metabolic screening
Published in
Journal of Community Genetics, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12687-012-0118-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Forman, Fiona Coyle, Jill Levy-Fisch, Pat Roberts, Sharon Terry, Michael Legge

Abstract

Newborn metabolic screening is the most widespread application of screening technology and provides the most comprehensive application of genetics in health services, where the Guthrie blood spot cards allow screening for metabolic diseases in close to 100 % of all newborn babies. Despite over 40 years of use and significant benefits to well in excess of 100,000 children worldwide, there is remarkably little consensus in what conditions should be screened for and response to new advances in medicine relating to programme expansion. In this article, the international criteria for newborn metabolic screening are considered, and we propose that these criteria are poorly developed in relation to the baby, its family and society as a whole. Additionally, the ethical issues that should inform the application of screening criteria are often not developed to a level where a consensus might easily be achieved. We also consider that when family interests are factored in to the decision-making process, they have a significant influence in determining the list of diseases in the panel, with countries or states incorporating family and societal values being the most responsive. Based on our analysis, we propose that decision criteria for metabolic screening in the newborn period should be adapted to specifically include parent and family interests, community values, patients' rights, duties of government and healthcare providers, and ethical arguments for action in the face of uncertainty.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 20%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 22 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 October 2012.
All research outputs
#14,091,105
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#218
of 361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,955
of 173,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 173,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.