Factors associated with knowledge of and satisfaction with newborn screening education: a survey of mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Effective parental education about newborn blood-spot screening may facilitate prompt follow-up, reduce psychosocial harms, and promote trust in screening programs. However, little is known about the aspects of education delivery and content that are of most importance for fostering understanding and meeting parental expectations. We aimed to identify elements of newborn blood-spot screening education and their associations with mothers' knowledge and satisfaction levels. METHODS: We conducted a survey (by mail) of 1,712 mothers who were residing in Ontario, Canada, and whose infants had recently undergone newborn blood-spot screening. RESULTS: We received 750 completed questionnaires (response rate 47%). Factors associated with respondents' higher knowledge of newborn blood-spot screening were higher level of education (odds ratio = 2.79), English being spoken at home (odds ratio = 1.96), receiving an information sheet at the time of newborn blood-spot screening (odds ratio = 1.57), and receiving information about how to interpret the results (odds ratio = 2.65). Factors associated with being satisfied were: receiving information prenatally (odds ratio = 2.35), from a health-care professional (odds ratio = 4.54), or from an information sheet at the time of newborn blood-spot screening (odds ratio = 1.72); and receiving messages about the purpose of screening (odds ratio = 3.78), the communication process (odds ratio = 2.57), the interpretation of the results (odds ratio = 4.19), and sample-handling methods (odds ratio = 3.13). CONCLUSION: Promoting mothers' understanding and meeting their expectations with respect to education about newborn blood-spot screening may require greater engagement with prenatal providers. It also calls for a greater emphasis on communicating with mothers about how blood samples are handled and about the meaning of the test results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".