PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Andrew Booth

Publications and source records attributed to Andrew Booth.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

The acceptability of blood spot screening and genome sequencing in newborn screening: a systematic review examining evidence and frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Population-wide newborn blood spot screening programmes are a successful public health intervention used to detect whether the baby is at risk of certain rare conditions, with the aim of earlier diagnosis and provision of optimal care and treatment. Evaluating candidate conditions to include in newborn blood spot and genetic sequencing raises questions regarding acceptability to parents/carers. METHODS: In the context of the possible expansion of the newborn blood spot screening programme in the United Kingdom, this review aimed to systematically review research on the acceptability to parents of newborn blood spot screening and genetic sequencing. A protocol was developed prior to commencing the review and was registered on the PROSPERO database. A team of researchers carried out the review, with checking at all stages carried out by at least two individuals. We included research published after 2013 with participants who were pregnant or a recent parent of a newborn and were resident in a high-income country. We included quantitative and qualitative studies that investigated the acceptability to parents/carers of newborn blood spot screening or genetic sequencing. Quantitative studies were narratively synthesised, and theories/frameworks identified and evaluated. Qualitative studies were analysed for recurring themes, and a meta-synthesis was carried out to compare and contrast these two types of data. We quality appraised included articles using tools appropriate for their study design. RESULTS: Searches were carried out in September to November 2023 and screening identified 25 relevant research articles. Just over half were from North America, with four existing reviews and nine qualitative studies. Domains of acceptability described in the literature were: support for screening; level of anxiety, information and knowledge; consent; views of the procedure; and support after screening. The research indicated consensus support for blood spot screening, and for expanding to some other conditions, although some parental anxiety was reported. Parents/carers mostly perceived that they had received sufficient information, but the timing of this could be improved. While parents indicated interest in genomic screening, studies highlighted the need for clearer consent procedures and greater support for parents following genomic screening than for blood spot screening. Only three included studies reported using any kind of theoretical framework. DISCUSSION: Most parents/carers found newborn blood spot screening programmes to be acceptable and favoured their large-scale implementation. A minority of parents/carers expressed concerns regarding the acceptability of processes underpinning newborn blood spot screening, such as consent, the timing of receiving information and support available after testing. More research is needed regarding the acceptability of newborn genomic sequencing screening programmes, which are less established compared with newborn blood spot screening programmes. LIMITATIONS: The over-representation of studies conducted in the United States has implications for the applicability of findings to other countries where testing is not typically mandatory and health systems differ considerably. Most studies were of cross-sectional design and there was limited representation of people from lower incomes and non-white ethnicity. While the inclusion of studies only in populations of future or very recent parents provided coherence to the findings, unclear reporting of participants may have resulted in under- or overinclusion of some studies. FUNDING: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR159927.

ACCEPTABILITY↗

Clear-cut?: facilitating health librarians to use information research in practice.

In 1999, staff at the universities of Sheffield and Oxford commenced an unfunded project to examine whether it is feasible to apply critical appraisal to daily library practice. This aimed to establish whether barriers experienced when appraising medical literature (such as lack of clinical knowledge, poor knowledge of research methodology and little familiarity with statistical terms) might be reduced when appraising research within a librarian's own discipline. Innovative workshops were devised to equip health librarians with skills in interpreting and applying research. Critical Skills Training in Appraisal for Librarians (CRISTAL) used purpose-specific checklists based on the Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. Delivery was via half-day workshops, based on a format used by the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Two pilot workshops in Sheffield and Oxford were evaluated using a brief post-workshop form. Participants recorded objectives in attending, their general understanding of research, and whether they had read the paper before the workshop. They were asked about the length, content and presentation of the workshop, the general format, organization and learning environment, whether it had been a good use of their time and whether they had enjoyed it. Findings must be interpreted with caution. The workshops were enjoyable and a good use of time. Although the scenario selected required no clinical knowledge, barriers remain regarding statistics and research methodology. Future workshops for librarians should include sessions on research design and statistics. Further developments will take forward these findings.

Feasibility Studies↗

Collective decisions.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Decision Making, Organizational↗

Mirage or reality?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

From EBM to EBL: two steps forward or one step back?

The author employs his vantage point as a contributor to Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) and Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL) in the United Kingdom to anticipate obstacles to be overcome by the emerging EBL paradigm. After reviewing and synthesizing three proto-definitions of EBL, he discusses issues around the potential domains to be populated by research findings. He then briefly considers the contribution that critical appraisal skills can make to an evidence-based profession. In concluding that "evidence-based librarianship" is a self-limiting "label," he encourages health information professionals instead to promote the contribution of librarianship to evidence-based practice, a role for which they are uniquely qualified.

Databases, Bibliographic↗