↓ Skip to main content

Review of Current International Decision-Making Processes for Newborn Screening: Lessons for Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Review of Current International Decision-Making Processes for Newborn Screening: Lessons for Australia
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00214
Pubmed ID
Authors

Selina Carolyne Metternick-Jones, Karla Jane Lister, Hugh J. S. Dawkins, Craig Anthony White, Tarun Stephen Weeramanthri

Abstract

Newborn bloodspot screening has been operating successfully in Australia for almost 50 years. Recently, the development of new technologies and treatments has led to calls for the addition of new conditions to the screening programs. Internationally, it is recognized by governments that national policies for newborn screening should support transparent and evidence-based decision making, and promote consistency between states within a country. Australia is lagging behind the international community, and currently has no national policies or decision-making processes, agreed by government, to support its newborn screening programs. In contrast, New Zealand (NZ), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (US) have robust and transparent processes to assess conditions for screening, which have been developed by, and have pathways to, government. This review provides detail on the current policy environment for newborn screening in Australia, highlighting that there are a number of risks to the programs resulting from the lack of a decision-making process. It also describes the processes used to assess conditions for newborn screening in the US, UK, and NZ. These examples highlight the benefits of developing a national decision-making process, including ensuring that screening is evidence based and effective. These examples also provide models that might be considered for Australia, as well as other countries currently seeking to introduce or expand newborn bloodspot screening.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 4 25%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Chemistry 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 24 October 2015.
All research outputs
#3,200,109
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,175
of 9,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,445
of 267,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#12
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
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 267,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.