Explore the vast range of titles available.

Neonatal screening (NBS) was initiated in Europe during the 1960s with the screening for phenylketonuria. The panel of screened disorders (“conditions”) then gradually expanded, with a boost in the late 1990s with the introduction of tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), making it possible to screen for 40–50 conditions using a single blood spot. The most recent additions to screening programmes (screening for cystic fibrosis, severe combined immunodeficiency and spinal muscular atrophy) were assisted by or realised through the introduction of molecular technologies. For this survey, we collected data from 51 European countries. We report the developments between 2010 and 2020 and highlight the achievements reached with the progress made in this period. We also identify areas where further progress can be made, mainly by exchanging knowledge and learning from experiences in neighbouring countries. Between 2010 and 2020, most NBS programmes in geographical Europe matured considerably, both in terms of methodology (modernised) and with regard to the panel of conditions screened (expanded). These developments indicate that more collaboration in Europe through European organisations is gaining momentum. We can only accomplish the timely detection of newborn infants potentially suffering from one of the many rare diseases and take appropriate action by working together.

Purpose Newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) has great potential to improve pediatric care. Parental interest and concerns about genomics are relatively unexplored. Understanding why parents decline research consent for nGS may reveal implementation barriers. Methods We evaluated parental interest in a randomized trial of nGS in well-baby and intensive care unit nursery settings. Interested families attended an informational enrollment session (ES) with a genetic counselor prior to consenting. Reason(s) for declining participation and sociodemographic associations were analyzed. Results Of 3860 eligible approached families, 10% attended ES, 67% of whom enrolled. Of 1760 families queried for decline reasons, 58% were uninterested in research. Among 499 families considering research, principal reasons for decline prior to ES included burdensome study logistics (48%), feeling overwhelmed postpartum (17%), and lack of interest/discomfort with genetic testing (17%). Decliners after ES more often cited concerns about privacy/insurability (41%) and uncertain/unfavorable results (23%). Conclusion Low interest in research and study logistics were major initial barriers to postpartum enrollment and are likely generic to many postpartum research efforts. Concerns over privacy and result implications were most commonly cited in decliners after ES. Understanding parental concerns around research nGS may inform future integration of nGS into newborn screening, predictive testing, and pediatric diagnostics.

Since 2010 it has been possible to determine a person's genetic makeup in a matter of days at an accessible cost for many millions of people. Along with this technological breakthrough there has emerged a movement to use this information to help prospective parents \"eliminate preventable genetic disease.\" As the prospect of systematically excluding the appearance of unwanted mutations in our children comes within reach, David B. Goldstein examines the possible consequences from these types of choices. Engaging and accessible, this clarion call for responsible and informed stewardship of the human genome provides an overview of what we do and do not know about human genetics and looks at some of the complex, yet largely unexplored, issues we must be most careful about as we move into an era of increasing numbers of parents exercising direct control over the genomes of their children.

In this randomized trial involving 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among those invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those assigned to no screening.

Background The greatest opportunity for lifelong impact of genomic sequencing is during the newborn period. The “BabySeq Project” is a randomized trial that explores the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of healthy and sick newborns. Methods Families of newborns are enrolled from Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital nurseries, and half are randomized to receive genomic sequencing and a report that includes monogenic disease variants, recessive carrier variants for childhood onset or actionable disorders, and pharmacogenomic variants. All families participate in a disclosure session, which includes the return of results for those in the sequencing arm. Outcomes are collected through review of medical records and surveys of parents and health care providers and include the rationale for choice of genes and variants to report; what genomic data adds to the medical management of sick and healthy babies; and the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of integrating genomic sequencing into the care of healthy and sick newborns. Discussion The BabySeq Project will provide empirical data about the risks, benefits and costs of newborn genomic sequencing and will inform policy decisions related to universal genomic screening of newborns. Trial registration The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02422511 . Registration date: 10 April 2015.

Objective To determine whether a decision aid designed for adults with low education and literacy can support informed choice and involvement in decisions about screening for bowel cancer.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting Areas in New South Wales, Australia identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (low education attainment, high unemployment, and unskilled occupations).Participants 572 adults aged between 55 and 64 with low educational attainment, eligible for bowel cancer screening.Intervention Patient decision aid comprising a paper based interactive booklet (with and without a question prompt list) and a DVD, presenting quantitative risk information on the possible outcomes of screening using faecal occult blood testing compared with no testing. The control group received standard information developed for the Australian national bowel screening programme. All materials and a faecal occult blood test kit were posted directly to people’s homes.Main outcome measures Informed choice (adequate knowledge and consistency between attitudes and screening behaviour) and preferences for involvement in screening decisions.Results Participants who received the decision aid showed higher levels of knowledge than the controls; the mean score (maximum score 12) for the decision aid group was 6.50 (95% confidence interval 6.15 to 6.84) and for the control group was 4.10 (3.85 to 4.36; P<0.001). Attitudes towards screening were less positive in the decision aid group, with 51% of the participants expressing favourable attitudes compared with 65% of participants in the control group (14% difference, 95% confidence interval 5% to 23%; P=0.002). The participation rate for screening was reduced in the decision aid group: completion of faecal occult blood testing was 59% v 75% in the control group (16% difference, 8% to 24%; P=0.001). The decision aid increased the proportion of participants who made an informed choice, from 12% in the control group to 34% in the decision aid group (22% difference, 15% to 29%; P<0.001). More participants in the decision aid group had no decisional conflict about the screening decision compared with the controls (51% v 38%; P=0.02). The groups did not differ for general anxiety or worry about bowel cancer.Conclusions Tailored decision support information can be effective in supporting informed choices and greater involvement in decisions about faecal occult blood testing among adults with low levels of education, without increasing anxiety or worry about developing bowel cancer. Using a decision aid to make an informed choice may, however, lead to lower uptake of screening.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00765869 and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12608000011381.