Abstract
Newborn bloodspot screening is one of the most enduring and successful population screening initiatives. Yet technological innovation to permit simultaneous measurement of multiple biomarkers — and potentially, entire genomes — has spurred expansion and debate. Through a cross-jurisdictional comparison, we describe the varied roles and reach of screening-related governance structures in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada, and highlight the distinct values and resources brought to bear by the genetics, public health and maternal-child health communities in adjudicating the benefits and burdens of expanded newborn screening. We call for the expansion of formal governance structures that are balanced in resources and perspective and mandated to ensure that the organization and delivery of newborn screening achieves optimal quality.
Key words: Mass screening, public health administration, public health, preventive medicine, health services administration, infant, newborn
Résumé
Le dépistage des taches de sang chez les nouveau-nés est une des initiatives de dépistage de masse les plus durables et fructueuses. Pourtant, l’innovation technologique pour permettre la mesure simultanée de multiples marqueurs biologiques, et peut-être des génomes entiers, a suscité une expansion et un débat. Nous décrivons au moyen d’une comparaison inter compétence la variété de rôles et la portée des structures de gouvernance du dépistage aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni, en Nouvelle-Zélande et au Canada, et soulignons les valeurs et ressources distinctes mises à profit par les communautés de la génétique, de la santé publique et de la santé maternelle et enfantine en jugeant les bénéfices et le fardeau du dépistage élargi chez les nouveau-nés. Nous demandons une expansion des structures de gouvernance officielles qui soit équilibrée en termes de ressources et de perspective et ayant le mandat de s’assurer que l’organisation et la prestation du dépistage chez les nouveau-nés soient d’une qualité optimale.
Mots Clés: dépistage de masse, administration de la santé publique, santé publique, médecine préventive, administration des services de santé, nourrisson, nouveau-né
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
References
- 1.Paul D. Patient advocacy in newborn screening: Continuities and discontinuities. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2008;148:8–14. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Baily MA, Murray TH. Ethics and Newborn Genetic Screening: New Technologies, New Challenges. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Burgard P, Cornel M D, Filippo F, Haege G, Hoffmann GF, Lindner M, et al. Report on the Practices of Newborn Screening for Rare Disorders Implemented in Member States of the European Union, Candidate, Potential Candidate and EFTA Countries. 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Steiner RD. Evidence based medicine in inborn errors of metabolism: Is there any and how to find it. Am J Med Genet A. 2005;134(2):192–97. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.30594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Moyer VA, Calonge N, Teutsch SM, Botkin JR. Expanding newborn screening: Process, policy, and priorities. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008;38(3):32–39. doi: 10.1353/hcr.0.0011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Starfield B. Primary Care: Concept, Evaluation, and Policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, USA; 1992. [Google Scholar]
- 7.United States Department of HealthHuman Services. Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 8.American College of Medical Genetics ACMG. Newborn screening: Toward a uniform screening panel and system. Genet Med. 2006;8(Suppl.1):S1–252. doi: 10.1097/01.gim.0000223891.82390.ad. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kemper AR, Green NS, Calonge N, Lam WK, Comeau AM, Goldenberg AJ, et al. Decision-making process for conditions nominated to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel: Statement of the US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. Genet Med. 2013;16(2):183–87. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Downing M, Pollitt R. Newborn bloodspot screening in the UK-past, present and future. Ann Clin Biochem. 2008;45(1):11–17. doi: 10.1258/acb.2007.007127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.New Zealand Office of the Minister of Health. The new policy and governance arrangements for Newborn Metabolic Screening Programme blood spot cards. 2011. Cabinet Social Policy Committee. [Google Scholar]
- 12.PR Newswire. Provinces and territories talk health care. 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hepburn CM, Booth M. Investments that are paying off. Ontario’s Provincial Council for Maternal and Child Health: Building a productive, system-level, change-oriented organization. Healthc Q. 2012;15(4):54–62. doi: 10.12927/hcq.2013.22940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hayeems RZ, Chakraborty P. A practical definition and key concepts of population-based screening. BORN Bull. 2012;3(2):1–4. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Goldenberg AJ, Sharp RR. The ethical hazards and programmatic challenges of genomic newborn screening. JAMA. 2012;307(5):461–62. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(3):427–32. doi: 10.1093/ije/30.3.427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Rosato M, Laverack G, Grabman LH, Tripathy P, Nair N, Mwansambo C, et al. Community participation: Lessons for maternal, newborn, and child health. Lancet. 2008;372(9642):962–71. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61406-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.American Academy of Family Physicians AAFP. State Government Relations Issue Brief: Newborn Screening. 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 19.McKusick VA. Presidential address: The growth and development of human genetics as a clinical discipline. Am J Hum Genet. 1975;27:261–73. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]