Education and Parental Involvement in Decision‐Making About Newborn Screening: Understanding Goals to Clarify Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A challenge in designing effective education for parents about newborn screening (NBS) has been uncertainty about appropriate content. Arguing that the goals of education may be usefully tied to parental decision-making, we sought to: (1) explore how different ways of implementing NBS differ in their approaches to parental engagement in decision-making; (2) map the potential goals of education onto these "implementation models"; and (3) consider the content that may be needed to support these goals. The resulting conceptual framework supports the availability of comprehensive information about NBS for parents, irrespective of the model of implementation. This is largely because we argue that meeting parental expectations and preferences for communication is an important goal regardless of whether or notparents are actively involved in making a decision. Our analysis supports a flexible approach, in which some educational messages are emphasized as important for all parents to understand while others are made available depending on parents' preferences. We have begun to define the content of NBS education for parents needed to support specific goals. Further research and discussion is important to determine the most appropriate strategies for delivering the tailored approach to education that emerged from our analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".