Positive newborn screening (NBS) results cause significant parental distress, but little is known about how parents find out about children’s screening results and what they are told. This qualitative, exploratory study reports on parents’ perceptions of the initial communication of NBS results. Participants included the parents of 75 infants referred to a metabolic clinic in California over a 3-year period (2007-2010). Parents provided information about the initial communication of NBS results during audiotaped clinical encounters and open-ended interviews. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using thematic coding. Responses fell into 3 primary themes: sources of news delivery, providing information, and mitigation strategies. The findings suggest that health care providers have access to a range of communicative resources to buffer the impact of positive screening results that may be mobilized in future interventions. Recommendations for improving the communication process and future research directions are discussed.
GrosseSDBoyleCAKennesonAKhouryMJWilfondBS. From public health emergency to public health service: the implications of evolving criteria for newborn screening panels. Pediatrics. 2006;117:923-929.
4.
TariniBAChristakisDAWelchHG. State newborn screening in the tandem mass spectrometry era: more tests, more false-positive results. Pediatrics. 2006;118: 448-456.
5.
FarrellMFarrellP. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: ensuring more good than harm. J Pediatr. 2003;143:707-712.
WilfondBParadRFostN. Balancing benefits and risks for cystic fibrosis screening: implications for policy decisions. J Pediatr. 2005;147(3 suppl):S109-S113.
8.
Lloyd-PuryearMBrowerA. Long-term follow-up in newborn screening: a systems approach for improving health outcomes. Genet Med. 2010;12(12 suppl):S256-S260.
9.
DavisTHumistonSArnoldC. Recommendations for effective newborn screening communication: result of focus groups with parents, providers, and experts. Pediatrics. 2006;117(5 pt 2):S326-S340.
10.
TimmermansSBuchbinderM. Patients-in-waiting: living between sickness and health in the genomics era. J Health Soc Behav. 2010;51:408-423.
11.
De LucaJKearneyMNortonSArnoldG. Parents’ experiences of expanded newborn screening evaluations. Pediatrics. 2011;128:53-61.
12.
HewlettJWaisbrenSE. A review of the psychosocial effects of false-positive results on parents and current communication practices in newborn screening. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2006;29:677-682.
13.
RossLF. Mandatory versus voluntary consent for newborn screening?Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2011;20:299-328.
14.
Newborn Screening Authoring Committee. Newborn screening expands: recommendations for pediatricians and medical homes—implications for the system. Pediatrics. 2008;121:192-217.
15.
KimSLloyd-PuryearMTonnigesT. Examination of the communication practices between state newborn screening programs and the medical home. Pediatrics. 2003;111:e120-e126.
16.
GennacaroMWaisbrenSEMarsdenD. The knowledge gap in expanded newborn screening: survey results from paediatricians in Massachusetts. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2005;28:819-824.
17.
FarrellMDeusterLDonovanJChristopherS. Pediatric residents’ use of jargon during counseling about newborn genetic screening results. Pediatrics. 2008;122:243-249.
18.
FarrellMLa PeanALadouceurL. Content of communication by pediatric residents after newborn genetic screening. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1492-1498.
19.
LaPeanAFarrellM. Initially misleading communication of carrier results after newborn genetic screening. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1499-1505.
20.
BuchbinderMTimmermansS. Medical technologies and the dream of the perfect newborn. Med Anthropol. 2011;30:56-80.
21.
BuchbinderMTimmermansS. Newborn screening and maternal diagnosis: rethinking family benefit. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:1014-1018.
22.
DillardJCarsonCBernardCJLaxovaAFarrellP. An analysis of communication following newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Commun. 2004;16:195-205.
23.
FeuchtbaumLDowraySLoreyF. The context and approach for the California newborn screening short- and long-term follow-up data system: preliminary findings. Genet Med. 2010;12(12 suppl):S242-S250.
24.
BrittenN. Qualitative research on health communication: what can it contribute?Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82:384-388.
25.
GreenJThorogoodN. Qualitative Methods for Health Research. London, England: Sage; 2004.
26.
StraussACorbinJ. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1990.
DillardJPCarsonC. Uncertainty management following a positive newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. J Health Commun. 2007;10:57-76.
29.
Del VentoABavelasJHealingSMacLeanGKirkP. An experimental investigation of delivering bad news. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77:443-449.
30.
MaynardDW. Notes on the delivery and reception of diagnostic news regarding mental disabilities. In: MeehanJRawlsAW eds. The Interactional Order: New Directions in the Study of Social Order. New York, NY: Irvington; 1989.
31.
PtacekJMcIntoshE. Physician challenges in communicating bad news. J Behav Med. 2009;32:380-387.
32.
HarrisonMEWallingA. What do we know about giving bad news? A review. Clin Pediatr. 2010;49:619-626.
33.
HorwitzNEllisJ. Paediatric SpRs’ experiences of breaking bad news. Child Care Health Dev. 2007;33:625-630.
34.
Rio-ValleJSCarroMPJuarezRM. Bad news for the patient and the family? The worst part of being a health care professional. J Palliat Care. 2009;25:191-196.
FarrellMCertainLFarrellP. Genetic counseling and risk communication services of newborn screening programs. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:120-126.
37.
GurianEAKinnamonDDHenryJJWaisbrenSE. Expanded newborn screening for biochemical disorders: the effect of a false-positive result. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1915-1921.
