You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 155 No. 2, February 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (22)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Medical Ethics
 •Genetics
 •Genetic Counseling/ Testing/ Therapy
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Genetic Counseling and Risk Communication Services of Newborn Screening Programs

Michael H. Farrell, MD; Laura K. Certain; Philip M. Farrell, MD, PhD

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:120-126.

Objectives  Newborn screening test results labeled "positive" can have uncertain implications for parents, especially when false-positive results occur or when heterozygous infants are detected using molecular tests for sickle cell hemoglobinopathy or cystic fibrosis. This study surveyed communication services across state newborn screening programs.

Methods  We surveyed newborn screening programs to identify current communication practices and the methods used for quality assessment. Two successive survey instruments with fixed-answer and free-answer questions were distributed to screening program follow-up coordinators or similar designated officials associated with 52 states and territories.

Results  Replies from 46 respondents (89% response rate) revealed that regional newborn screening programs vary widely in their approaches to counseling. Of the 46 respondents, 35 (76%) answered that they "routinely" provide counseling services to families of affected infants. Depending on the disease, an average of approximately one-half that number provide counseling after false-positive results or for heterozygous infants. Most respondents advocate nondirective counseling more than direct advice. Most programs reported that counseling was usually done by subspecialist physicians or specially trained nurses and counselors. Respondents reported a perception that the "quality" of counseling by these professionals is better than counseling by primary care physicians. Few programs reported systems for assessing quality assurance of counseling.

Conclusions  Newborn screening programs in the United States vary widely with regard to counseling practices, and no best practices are currently evident. Few programs provide counseling quality assurance. Further study and advocacy is needed to optimize communication services, preferably before implementation of molecular tests arising as a result of the Human Genome Project.


From the Departments of Pediatrics and Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (Dr M. H. Farrell); and the Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin, Madison (Ms Certain and Dr P. M. Farrell).

Corresponding author and reprints: Michael H. Farrell, MD, Internal Medicine and Pediatrics Residency Program, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St, Room LMP 1074, New Haven, CT 06520-8086 (e-mail: Michael.Farrell{at}yale.edu).


RELATED ARTICLE

Is Public Health Ready for Genetics?
Neil A. Holtzman
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155(2):117-118.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Pediatric Residents' Use of Jargon During Counseling About Newborn Genetic Screening Results
Farrell et al.
Pediatrics 2008;122:243-249.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Assessment of Parental Understanding by Pediatric Residents During Counseling After Newborn Genetic Screening
Farrell and Kuruvilla
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008;162:199-204.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Recommendations for Effective Newborn Screening Communication: Results of Focus Groups With Parents, Providers, and Experts
Davis et al.
Pediatrics 2006;117:S326-S340.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Content of Communication by Pediatric Residents After Newborn Genetic Screening
Farrell et al.
Pediatrics 2005;116:1492-1498.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Initially Misleading Communication of Carrier Results After Newborn Genetic Screening
La Pean and Farrell
Pediatrics 2005;116:1499-1505.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What Follows Newborn Screening? An Evaluation of a Residential Education Program for Parents of Infants With Newly Diagnosed Cystic Fibrosis
Sawyer and Glazner
Pediatrics 2004;114:411-416.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Is Public Health Ready for Genetics? An Unanswered Question
Cunningham et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:1175-1176.
FULL TEXT  

Early Diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis
Grosse et al.
Pediatrics 2001;107:1492-1492.
FULL TEXT  

Genetic Counseling and Neonatal Screening for Cystic Fibrosis: An Assessment of the Communication Process
Ciske et al.
Pediatrics 2001;107:699-705.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Is Public Health Ready for Genetics?
Holtzman
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:117-118.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2001 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.