Australian parents' perspectives on extended genomic screening: what information to return and when?

IF 4.6 2区 生物学 Q2 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Fiona Lynch, Christopher Gyngell, Stephanie Best, Clara Gaff, Lilian Downie, Alison Archibald, Ilias Goranitis, Julian Savulescu, Sebastian Lunke, Zornitza Stark, Danya F Vears
{"title":"Australian parents' perspectives on extended genomic screening: what information to return and when?","authors":"Fiona Lynch, Christopher Gyngell, Stephanie Best, Clara Gaff, Lilian Downie, Alison Archibald, Ilias Goranitis, Julian Savulescu, Sebastian Lunke, Zornitza Stark, Danya F Vears","doi":"10.1038/s41431-026-02168-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Genomic newborn screening (gNBS) has the potential to generate information that remains relevant across the lifespan, yet little is known about how families who have directly experienced gNBS, understand its long-term role and value. This study analysed the results of eight focus groups with 32 parents whose children had received findings from gNBS (through the BabyScreen+ study, a population-based Australian gNBS pilot programme), to explore how they conceptualise the use of genomic information beyond infancy (which we refer to as extended genomic sequencing, or eGS). Parents described a complex interplay of factors including treatability, severity, certainty, and personal capacity to manage information that shaped their desire to receive results. Using the Health Belief Model as a lens, we show how parental reflections mapped to constructs such as perceived benefits, barriers, severity, susceptibility, self-efficacy, and cues to action. However, parents' reasoning was dynamic rather than static, illustrating how shifts in clinical options or family circumstances influence decision making over time. Overall, our findings demonstrate that families view gNBS data as a potential lifetime resource and support the need for flexible consent pathways, ongoing counselling, and governance frameworks that anticipate both the benefits and burdens of genomic information. This work offers timely insights to inform ethical implementation of eGS in Australia and contributes to international discussions about integrating genomic sequencing into population-level screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":12016,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Human Genetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Human Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-026-02168-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Genomic newborn screening (gNBS) has the potential to generate information that remains relevant across the lifespan, yet little is known about how families who have directly experienced gNBS, understand its long-term role and value. This study analysed the results of eight focus groups with 32 parents whose children had received findings from gNBS (through the BabyScreen+ study, a population-based Australian gNBS pilot programme), to explore how they conceptualise the use of genomic information beyond infancy (which we refer to as extended genomic sequencing, or eGS). Parents described a complex interplay of factors including treatability, severity, certainty, and personal capacity to manage information that shaped their desire to receive results. Using the Health Belief Model as a lens, we show how parental reflections mapped to constructs such as perceived benefits, barriers, severity, susceptibility, self-efficacy, and cues to action. However, parents' reasoning was dynamic rather than static, illustrating how shifts in clinical options or family circumstances influence decision making over time. Overall, our findings demonstrate that families view gNBS data as a potential lifetime resource and support the need for flexible consent pathways, ongoing counselling, and governance frameworks that anticipate both the benefits and burdens of genomic information. This work offers timely insights to inform ethical implementation of eGS in Australia and contributes to international discussions about integrating genomic sequencing into population-level screening.

澳大利亚父母对扩展基因组筛查的看法:什么信息需要返回,什么时候返回?
新生儿基因组筛查(gNBS)有可能产生与整个生命周期相关的信息,但对于直接经历过gNBS的家庭如何理解其长期作用和价值,人们知之甚少。本研究分析了8个焦点小组的结果,其中32位父母的孩子接受了gNBS的研究结果(通过基于人口的澳大利亚gNBS试点项目——babysgreen +研究),以探索他们如何概念化婴儿期之后基因组信息的使用(我们称之为扩展基因组测序,或eGS)。家长们描述了一个复杂的相互作用因素,包括可治疗性、严重性、确定性和个人管理信息的能力,这些因素塑造了他们对结果的渴望。以健康信念模型为视角,我们展示了父母的思考如何映射到诸如感知利益、障碍、严重程度、易感性、自我效能和行动线索等结构。然而,父母的推理是动态的,而不是静态的,这说明了临床选择或家庭环境的变化如何随着时间的推移影响决策。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,家庭将gNBS数据视为潜在的终身资源,并支持灵活的同意途径、持续的咨询和管理框架的需求,这些框架可以预测基因组信息的好处和负担。这项工作为澳大利亚eGS的伦理实施提供了及时的见解,并有助于将基因组测序整合到人群水平筛查中的国际讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Human Genetics
European Journal of Human Genetics 生物-生化与分子生物学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
5.80%
发文量
216
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Human Genetics is the official journal of the European Society of Human Genetics, publishing high-quality, original research papers, short reports and reviews in the rapidly expanding field of human genetics and genomics. It covers molecular, clinical and cytogenetics, interfacing between advanced biomedical research and the clinician, and bridging the great diversity of facilities, resources and viewpoints in the genetics community. Key areas include: -Monogenic and multifactorial disorders -Development and malformation -Hereditary cancer -Medical Genomics -Gene mapping and functional studies -Genotype-phenotype correlations -Genetic variation and genome diversity -Statistical and computational genetics -Bioinformatics -Advances in diagnostics -Therapy and prevention -Animal models -Genetic services -Community genetics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书