Consent for Newborn Screening: The Attitudes of Health Care Providers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As newborn screening (NBS) expands to meet a broader definition of benefit, the scope of parental consent warrants reconsideration. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study of health care provider attitudes toward consent for NBS, including a survey (n = 1,615) and semi-structured interviews (n = 36). RESULTS: Consent practices and attitudes varied by provider but the majority supported mandatory screening (63.4%) and only 36.6% supported some form of parental discretion. Few health care providers (18.6%) supported seeking explicit consent for screening condition-by-condition, but a larger minority (39.6%) supported seeking consent for the disclosure of incidentally generated sickle cell carrier results. Qualitative findings illuminate these preferences: respondents who favored consent emphasized its ease while dissenters saw consent as highly complex. CONCLUSION: Few providers supported explicit consent for NBS. Further, those who supported consent viewed it as a simple process. Arguably, these attitudes reflect the public health emergency NBS once was, rather than the public health service it has become. The complexity of NBS panels may have to be aligned with providers' capacity to implement screening appropriately, or providers will need sufficient resources to engage in a more nuanced approach to consent for expanded NBS.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it