Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Mar 21:5:53.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00053. eCollection 2017.

Policy Making in Newborn Screening Needs a Structured and Transparent Approach

Marleen E Jansen  1 , Karla J Lister  2 , Henk J van Kranen  3 , Martina C Cornel  4
Affiliations
Review

Policy Making in Newborn Screening Needs a Structured and Transparent Approach

Marleen E Jansen et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

Purpose: Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) programs have expanded significantly in the past years and are expected to expand further with the emergence of genetic technologies. Historically, NBS expansion has often occurred following ad hoc consideration of conditions, instead of a structured and transparent approach. In this review, we explore issues pertinent to NBS policy making, through the lens of the policy cycle: (a) agenda setting, (b) policy advice, (c) policy decision, (d) implementation, and (e) evaluation.

Methods: A literature search was conducted to gather information on the elements specific to NBS and its policy making process.

Results: The review highlighted two approaches to nominate a condition: a structured approach through horizon scanning; and an ad hoc process. For assessment of a condition, there was unanimous support for a robust process based on criteria. While the need to assess harms and benefits was a repeated theme in the articles, there is no agreed-upon threshold for benefit in decision-making. Furthermore, the literature was consistent in its recommendation for an overarching, independent, multidisciplinary group providing recommendations to government. An implementation plan focusing on the different levels on which NBS operates and the information needed on each level is essential for successful implementation. Continuously monitoring, and improving a program is vital, particularly following the implementation of screening for a new condition. An advisory committee could advise on implementation, development, review, modification, and cessation of (parts of) NBS.

Conclusion: The results highlight that there are a wave of issues facing NBS programs that policy makers must take into account when developing policy processes. What conditions to screen, and the technologies used in NBS, are both up for debate.

Keywords: decision making; genetic testing; genomic screening; newborn screening; public health policy.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Therrell BL, Padilla CD, Loeber JG, Kneisser I, Saadallah A, Borrajo GJC, et al. Current status of newborn screening worldwide: 2015. Semin Perinatol (2015) 39:171–87. 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.03.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Health Council of the Netherlands. Neonatal Screening: New Recommendations. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; (2015).
    1. Bombard Y, Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Avard D, Knoppers BM. Reconsidering reproductive benefit through newborn screening: a systematic review of guidelines on preconception, prenatal and newborn screening. Eur J Hum Genet (2010) 18:751–60. 10.1038/ejhg.2010.13 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moyer VA, Calonge N, Teutsch SM, Botkin JR. Expanding newborn screening: process, policy, and priorities. Hastings Cent Rep (2008) 38(3):32–9. 10.1353/hcr.0.0011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Therrell BL. U.S. newborn screening policy dilemmas for the twenty-first century. Mol Genet Metab (2001) 74:64–74. 10.1006/mgme.2001.3238 - DOI - PubMed