» Articles » PMID: 33831694

Acceptability of Childhood Screening: a Systematic Narrative Review

Overview
Journal Public Health
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Public Health
Date 2021 Apr 8
PMID 33831694
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: A systematic narrative literature review was undertaken to assess the acceptability of childhood screening interventions to identify factors to consider when planning or modifying childhood screening programs to maximize participation and uptake.

Study Design: This is a systematic narrative literature review.

Methods: Electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO via Ovid, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) to identify primary research studies that assessed screening acceptability. Studies were categorized using an existing theoretical framework of acceptability consisting of seven constructs: affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy. A protocol was developed and registered with PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42018099763) RESULTS: The search identified 4529 studies, and 46 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies involved neonatal screening. Programs identified included newborn blood spot screening (n = 22), neonatal hearing screening (n = 13), Duchenne muscular dystrophy screening (n = 4), cystic fibrosis screening (n = 3), screening for congenital heart defects (n = 2), and others (n = 2). Most studies assessed more than one construct of acceptability. The most common constructs identified were affective attitude (how a parent feels about the program) and intervention coherence (parental understanding of the program, and/or the potential consequences of a confirmed diagnosis).

Conclusions: The main acceptability component identified related to parental knowledge and understanding of the screening process, the testing procedure(s), and consent. The emotional impact of childhood screening mostly explored maternal anxiety. Further studies are needed to examine the acceptability of childhood screening across the wider family unit. When planning new (or refining existing) childhood screening programs, it is important to assess acceptability before implementation. This should include assessment of important issues such as information needs, timing of information, and when and where the screening should occur.

Citing Articles

Knowledge, perception, and satisfaction of postpartum women about newborn hearing screening in two private Brazilian maternity hospitals.

Hanna K, Cremonesi A, Torloni M, Ferreira G Codas. 2025; 37(2):e20230326.

PMID: 40008753 PMC: 11864762. DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/e20230326pt.


Maternity Care Providers' Experiences with Providing Information on Newborn Bloodspot Screening During Pregnancy: A Dutch Survey Study.

Klapwijk J, Gitsels-van der Wal J, Martin L, Verschoof-Puite R, Elsinghorst E, Henneman L Int J Neonatal Screen. 2025; 11(1.

PMID: 39846591 PMC: 11755565. DOI: 10.3390/ijns11010005.


Screening tools for autism in culturally and linguistically diverse paediatric populations: a systematic review.

Huda E, Hawker P, Cibralic S, John J, Hussain A, Mendoza Diaz A BMC Pediatr. 2024; 24(1):610.

PMID: 39342198 PMC: 11437884. DOI: 10.1186/s12887-024-05067-5.


Preferences for Peer Support Amongst Families Engaged in Paediatric Screening Programmes: The Perspectives of Parents Involved in Screening for Type 1 Diabetes in Children Aged 3-13.

Litchfield I, Quinn L, Boardman F, Boiko O, Narendran P, Choundhary S Health Expect. 2024; 27(4):e70007.

PMID: 39189410 PMC: 11348000. DOI: 10.1111/hex.70007.


Well controlled maternal inflammatory bowel disease does not increase the risk of abnormal neurocognitive outcome screening in offspring.

Prentice R, Hunt R, Spittle A, Ditchfield M, Chen J, Burns M Brain Behav Immun Health. 2024; 40:100827.

PMID: 39149622 PMC: 11326492. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbih.2024.100827.


References
1.
Din E, Brown C, Grosse S, Wang C, Bialek S, Ross D . Attitudes toward newborn screening for cytomegalovirus infection. Pediatrics. 2011; 128(6):e1434-42. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-1444. View

2.
Weinreich S, Rigter T, van El C, Dondorp W, Kostense P, van der Ploeg A . Public support for neonatal screening for Pompe disease, a broad-phenotype condition. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012; 7:15. PMC: 3351372. DOI: 10.1186/1750-1172-7-15. View

3.
Walsh Lang C, Stark A, Acharya K, Friedman Ross L . Maternal knowledge and attitudes about newborn screening for sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis. Am J Med Genet A. 2009; 149A(11):2424-9. PMC: 2784105. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33074. View

4.
Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Dery V . Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ. 2008; 86(4):317-9. PMC: 2647421. DOI: 10.2471/blt.07.050112. View

5.
Cyrus A, Street N, Quary S, Kable J, Kenneson A, Fernhoff P . Clinic-based infant screening for duchenne muscular dystrophy: a feasibility study. PLoS Curr. 2012; :e4f99c5654147a. PMC: 3392140. DOI: 10.1371/4f99c5654147a. View