Acceptability of childhood screening: a systematic narrative review

Download

Text (Open Access) - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· The Copyright of this document has not been checked yet. This may affect its availability.
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Restricted to Repository staff only

Available under license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives

Advice

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Tools

Lists

Carlton, J., Griffiths, H. J., Horwood, A. M. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0886-9686, Mazzone, P. P., Walker, R. and Simonsz, H. J. (2021) Acceptability of childhood screening: a systematic narrative review. Public Health, 193. pp. 126-138. ISSN 0033-3506 doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.02.005

Abstract/Summary

Objectives A systematic narrative literature review was undertaken to assess the acceptability of childhood screening interventions to identify factors to consider when planning or modifying childhood screening programs to maximize participation and uptake. Study design A systematic narrative literature review Methods Electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO via Ovid, CINAHL and Cochrane Library) to identify primary research studies that assessed screening acceptability. Studies were categorized using an existing theoretical framework of acceptability consisting of seven constructs; affective attitude; burden; ethicality; intervention coherence; opportunity costs; perceived effectiveness; and selfefficacy. PROSPERO CRD42018099763. Results The search identified 4529 studies, 46 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies involved neonatal screening. Programs identified included newborn bloodspot screening (n=22), neonatal hearing screening (n=13), Duchenne muscular dystrophy (n=4), cystic fibrosis (n=3), congenital heart defects (n=2), and others (n=2). Most studies assessed more than one construct of acceptability. The most common constructs identified were affective attitude (how a parent feels about the program) and intervention coherence (parental understanding of the program, and/or the potential consequences of a confirmed diagnosis). Conclusions The main acceptability component identified related to parental knowledge and understanding of the screening process, testing procedure(s), and consent. The emotional impact of childhood screening mostly explored maternal anxiety. Further studies are needed to examine the acceptability of childhood screening across the wider family unit. When planning new (or refining existing) childhood screening programs it is important to assess acceptability prior to implementation. This should include assessment of important issues such as information needs, timing of information, and when and where the screening should occur.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type	Article
URI	https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/96481
Identification Number/DOI	10.1016/j.puhe.2021.02.005
Refereed	Yes
Divisions	Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Department of Psychology Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Development
Uncontrolled Keywords	Screening Acceptability Infant Childhood
Publisher	Elsevier
Download/View statistics	View download statistics for this item

Deposit Details

Date Deposited:	25 Feb 2021 09:53	Date item deposited into CentAUR
Last Modified:	23 Jun 2024 01:28	Date item last modified

References

1. Wilson JMG, Junger G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Public health papers no. 34. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968. 2. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Déry V. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2008;86:241-320. 3. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Services Research. 2017;17:88. 4. Burström B. Market-oriented, demand-driven health care reforms and equity in health and health care utilization in Sweden. Int J Health Serv. 2009;39(2):271-85. doi: 10.2190/HS.39.2.c. 5. Hosseini H. Misallocation of Demand and the Persistent Non-emergent Use of the Emergency Department Post-Healthcare Reform. Hospital Topics. 2020;98(2):51-8. doi.org/10.1080/00185868.2020.1750325 6. Schneider EL, Guralnik JM. The Aging of America: Impact on Health Care Costs. JAMA 1990;263(17):2335-40. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440170057036 7. Brouwer W, van Baal P, van Exel J et al. When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making. . Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20:175-80. doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-1000-4 8. Goyen M, Debatin JF. Healthcare costs for new technologies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:139-43. doi.org/10.1007/s00259-008-0975-y 9. Sorenson C, Drummond M, Khan BB. Medical technology as a key driver of rising health expenditure: disentangling the relationship. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;5:223-34. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S39634. 10. Public Health England. Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme. [Updated 23 October 2015. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-review-criteria-national-screeningprogrammes/criteria-for-appraising-the-viability-effectiveness-and-appropriateness-of-a-screeningprogramme. Accessed 3rd Feb 2021. 11. World Health Organization. Screening programmes: a short guide. (Increase effectiveness, maximize benefits and minimize harm). Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330829/9789289054782-eng.pdf. Accessed 3rd Feb 2021. 12. Mazzone P, Carlton J, Griffiths H. Acceptability of childhood screening programmes CRD42018099763: PROSPERO; 2018 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018099763. Accessed 3rd Feb 2021 13. Parsons EP, Israel J, Hood, K, Bradley DM. Optional screening for DMD: reasons given by mothers for opting in or out. Br J Midwifery. 2006;14:710-4. 14. Tluczek A, Mischler EH, Farrell PM, Fost N, Peterson NM, Carey P, Bruns WT, McCarthy C. Parents' knowledge of neonatal screening and response to false-positive cystic fibrosis testing. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1992;13(3):181-6. 15. Vohr BR, Letourneau KS, McDermott C. Maternal worry about neonatal hearing screening. J Perinatol. 2001;21:15-20. 10.1038/sj.jp.7200475 16. Akilan R, Vidya R, Roopa N. Perception of 'mothers of beneficiaries' regarding a rural community based hearing screening service. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 2014;78(12):2083-8. 17. Al-Sulaiman A, Kondkar AA, Saeedi MY, Saadallah A, Al-Odaib A, Abu-Amero KK. Assessment of the Knowledge and Attitudes of Saudi Mothers towards Newborn Screening. BioMed Research International. 2015;2015:718674. doi: 10.1155/2015/718674. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 13 18. Araia MH, Wilson BJ, Chakraborty P, Gall K, Honeywell C, Milburn J, et al. Factors associated with knowledge of and satisfaction with newborn screening education: a survey of mothers. Genet Med. 2012;14(12):963-70. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.87 19. Crockett R BH, Uus K, Bamford J, Marteau TM. Maternal anxiety and satisfaction following infant hearing screening: a comparison of the health visitor distraction test and newborn hearing screening. J Med Screen. 2005;12:78-82. 20. Crockett R, Baker H, Uus K, Bamford J, Marteau TM. Maternal anxiety following newborn hearing screening: the moderating role of knowledge. J Med Screen. 2006;2006:20-5. doi: 10.1258/0969141053908320 21. Cyrus A, Street N, Quary S, Kable J, Kenneson A, Fernhoff P. Clinic-based infant screening for duchenne muscular dystrophy: a feasibility study. PLoS Curr. 2012:e4f99c5654147a. doi: 10.1371/4f99c5654147a. 22. Danhauer JL, Johnson CE. Parents' perceptions of an emerging community-based newborn hearing screening program: a case study. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(3):202-22. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.17.3.6. 23. Davis TC, Humiston SG, Arnold CL, Bocchini JA Jr, Bass PF III, Kennen EM, Bocchini A, Kyler P, Lloyd-Puryear M. Recommendations for effective newborn screening communication: results of focus groups with parents, providers and experts. Pediatrics. 2006;117(5):S326-40. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-2633M. 24. Detmar S, Hosli E, Dijkstra N, Nijsingh N, Rijnders M, Verweij M. Information and informed consent for neonatal screening: opinions and preferences of parents. Birth. 2007;34(3):238-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2007.00176.x. 25. Etchegary H, Nicholls SG, Tessier L, Simmonds C, Potter BK, Brehaut JC, Pullman D, Hayeems R, Zelenietz S, Lamoureux M, Milburn J, Turner L, Chakraborty P, Wilson B. Consent for newborn screening: parents' and health-care professionals' experiences of consent in practice. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(11):1530-4. 26. Hargreaves KM, Stewart RJ, Oliver SR. Informed choice and public health screening for children: the case of blood spot screening. Health Expect. 2005;8(2):161-71. doi: 10.1111/j.13697625.2005.00324.x. 27. Hergils L, Hergils Å. Universal neonatal hearing screening -- parental attitudes and concerns. Br J Audiol. 2000;34(6):321-7. doi: 10.3109/03005364000000147. 28. Joseph G, Chen F, Harris-Wai J, Puck JM, Young C, Koenig BA. Parental views on expanded newborn screening using whole-genome sequencing. Pediatr. 2016;137:S36-S46. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3731H 29. Mohd Khairi MD, Rafidah KN, Affizal A, Normastura AR, Suzana M, Normani ZM. Anxiety of the mothers with referred baby during Universal Newborn Hearing Screening. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;75:513-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.01.009 30. Lam MYY, Wong ECM, Law CW, Lee HLL, McPherson B. Maternal knowledge and attitudes to universal newborn hearing screening: reviewing an established program. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;105. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.12.021 31. Lang CW, Stark AP, Acharya K, Ross LF. Maternal knowledge and attitudes about newborn screening for sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis. Am J Med Genet A. 2009;149A(11):2424-9. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33074. 32. Lipstein EA, Nabi E, Perrin JM, Luff D, Browning MF, Kuhlthau KA. Parents' decision-making in newborn screening: Opinions, choices, and information needs. Pediatr. 2010;126(4):696-704. doi: 10.1542/peds2010-0217 33. Magnuson M, Hergils L. The parents' view on hearing screening in newborns: Feelings, thoughts and opinions on otoacoustic emissions screening. Scand Audiol. 2009;28:47-56. doi: 10.1080/010503999424905. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 14 34. Mak CM, Lam CW, Law CY, Siu WK, Kwong LL, Chan KL, et al. Parental attitudes on expanded newborn screening in Hong Kong. Public Health. 2012;126(11):954-9. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2012.08.002. 35. Moody L, Choudhry K. Parental views on informed consent for expanded newborn screening. Health Expectat. 2013;16(3):239-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00710.x. 36. Narayen IC, Kaptein AA, Hogewoning JA, Blom NA, Te Pas AB. Maternal acceptability of pulse oximetry screening at home after home birth or very early discharge. Eur J Pediatr. 2017;176(5):66972. doi: 10.1007/s00431-017-2883-2. 37. Nicholls SG. Proceduralisation, choice and parental reflections on decisions to accept newborn bloodspot screening. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(5):299-303. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011100040. 38. Nicholls SG, Southern KW. Parental decision-making and acceptance of newborn screening: an exploratory study. PLoS One. 2013;8:e79441. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079441. 39. Parsons EP, Clarke A, Hood K, Lycett E, Bradley DM. Newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a psychosocial study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2002;86:F91-5. doi: 10.1136/fn.86.2.f91. 40. Parsons EP, King JT, Israel JA, Bradley DM. Mothers' accounts of screening newborn babies in Wales (UK). Midwifery. 2007;23:59-65. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2006.05.008. 41. Powell R Pattison HM, Bhoyar A, Furmston AT, Middleton LJ, Daniels JP, Ewer AK. Pulse oximetry screening for congenital heart defects in newborn infants: an evaluation of acceptability to mothers. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013;98:F59-63. doi: 10.1136/fetalneonatal-2011301225. 42. Quinlivan JA, Suriadi C. Attitudes of new mothers towards genetics and newborn screening. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27(1):67-72. doi: 10.1080/01674820500420652. 43. Scheepers LJ Swanepoel de W, Roux TL. Why parents refuse newborn hearing screening and default on follow-up rescreening - A South African perspective. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:652-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.01.026. 44. Skinner D, Choudhury S, Sideris J, Guarda S, Buansi A, Roche M, et al. Parents' decisions to screen newborns for FMR1 gene expansions in a pilot research project. Pediatrics. 2011;127(6):e1455-63. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3078. 45. Stuart A, Moretz M, Yang EY. An investigation of maternal stress after neonatal hearing screening. Am J Audiol. 2000;9:135-41. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(2000/016). 46. Tariq B, Ahmed A, Habib A, Turab A, Ali N, Soofi SB, Nooruddin S, Kumar RJ, Tariq A, Shaheen F, Ariff S. Assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practices towards a newborn screening for congenital hypothyroidism before an after a health education intervention in pregnant women in a hospital setting in Pakistan. Int Health. 2018;10. doi: 10.1093/inthealth/ihx069. 47. Tluczek A, Koscik R, Farrell PM, Rock MJ. Psychosocial risk associated with newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: parents' experience while awaiting the sweat-test appointment. Pediatrics. 2005;115:1692-703. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-0275. 48. Tluczek A, Orland KM, Nick SW, Brown RL. Newborn screening: an appeal for improved parent education. J Perinat Neonat Nurs. 2009;23(4):326-34. doi: 10.1097/JPN.0b013e3181a1bc1f. 49. Ulph F, Cullinan T, Qureshi N, Kai J. Familial influences on antenatal and newborn haemoglobinopathy screening. Ethn Health. 2011;16(4-5):361-75. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2011.556245. 50. Waisbren SE, Albers S, Amato S, Ampola M, Brewster TG, Demmer L, et al. Effect of expanded newborn screening for biochemical genetic disorders on child outcomes and parental stress. JAMA2003;290(19):2564-72. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.19.2564. 51. Weichbold V, Welzel-Mueller K, Mussbacher E. The impact of information on maternal attitudes towards universal neonatal screening. Br J Audiol. 2001;35:59-66. doi: 10.1080/03005364.2001.11742732. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 15 52. Witting M, Boere-Boonekamp MM, Fleuren MAH, Sakkers RJB, Ijzerman MJ. Psychosocial predictors of parental participation in ultrasound screening for developmental dysplasia of the hip. Fam Syst Health. 2013;31(2):218-29. doi: 10.1037/a0032393. 53. Christie L, Wotton T, Bennetts B, Wiley V, Wilcken B, Rogers C, et al. Maternal attitudes to newborn screening for fragile X syndrome. Am J Med Geneti A. 2013;161A(2):301-11. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35752 54. Din ES, Brown CJ, Grosse SD, Wang C, Bialek SR, Ross DS, et al. Attitudes toward newborn screening for cytomegalovirus infection. Pediatrics. 2011;128(6):e1434-42. doi: 10.1542/peds.20111444. 55. Fitzgerald C, Heery E, Conneally N, Linnane B, George S, Fitzpatrick P. An evaluation of pregnant women's knowledge and attitudes about newborn bloodspot screening. Midwifery. 2017;45:21-7. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2016.11.007. 56. Jatto ME, Ogunkeyede S, Adeyemo AA, Adeagbo K, Saiki O. Mothers' perspectives of newborn hearing screening programme. Ghana Med J. 2018;52:158-62. doi: 10.4314/gmj.v52i3.9. 57. Weinreich SS, Rigter T, Van El CG, Dondorp WJ, Kostense PJ, Van Der Ploeg AT, et al. Public support for neonatal screening for Pompe disease, a broad-phenotype condition. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7(1):15. doi: 10.1186/1750-1172-7-15. 58. Parsons EP, Moore C, Israel J, Hood K, Clarke AJ, Bradley DM. Emphasizing parental choice on newborn screening. Br J Midwifery. 2005;13:165-8. 59. Lam MYY, Wong ECM, Law CW, Lee HHL, McPherson B. Maternal knowledge and attitudes to universal newborn hearing screening: Reviewing an established program. I J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;105:146-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.12.021. 60. Stewart R, Oliver S. What is known about communication with parents about newborn bloodspot screening? London: UK Newborn Screening Programme Centre; 2003. Available from: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/Communication%20Rev iew.pdf?ver=2007-10-01-085150-917. Accessed 3rd Feb 2021. 61. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011;38:6576. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7. 62. Szczepura A Price C, Gumber A . Breast and bowel cancer screening uptake patterns over 15 years for UK south Asian ethnic minority populations, corrected for differences in socio-demographic characteristics. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:1-15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-346. 63. von Wagner C BG, Raine R, Snowball J, Morris S, Atkin W et al. Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:712-8. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr008. 64. Deandrea S, Molina-Barceló A, Uluturk A, Moreno J, Neamtiu L, Peiró-Pérez R et al. Presence, characteristics and equity of access to breast cancer screening programmes in 27 European countries in 2010 and 2014. Results from an international survey. Prev Med. 2016;91:250-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.08.021. 65. Islam MR, Faruque CJ. Features of qualitative research. In: Qualitative Research: Tools and Techniques. Islam MR, Faruque CJ(Ed). USA: Farwood Publishing; 2016. p. 18-52. 66. Hassan E. Recall bias can be a threat to retrospective and prospective research designs. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;3:1-7. doi: 10.5580/2732 67. Smith SMS Jan S, Descallar J, et al. An investigation of methods to improve recall for the patient-reported outcome measurement in COPD patients: a pilot randomised control trial and feasibility study protocol. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2019;5. doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0475-9.

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar