Cited by 69Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareGenomics and Rare Diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Informing parents about positive newborn screen results: Parents' recommendations

Open access
Salm, Natalie, Yetter, Elena, Tluczek, Audrey·2012·Journal of Child Health Care

Abstract

This descriptive study examined parents’ reactions to newborn screening (NBS) results and their recommendations for improving communication. Dimensional and content analyses were conducted on interviews with 203 parents of 106 infants having positive NBS results. Diagnostic results confirmed infants as having congenital hypothyroidism ( n = 37), cystic fibrosis ( n = 26), or being cystic fibrosis (CF)-carriers ( n = 43). Parents’ reactions ranged from ‘very scary’ to ‘not too concerned’. Most reported feeling shock, panic, and worry; some reported guilt. Parents in the CF and CF-carrier groups preferred face-to-face disclosure as the communication channel; whereas congenital hypothyroidism group parents supported telephone contacts. Parents recommended providers be well informed, honest, and calm; personalize disclosure, avoid jargon, listen carefully, encourage questions, recognize parental distress, offer realistic reassurance, pace amount and rate of information, assess parents’ understanding, and refer to specialists. We conclude that provider–patient communication approach and channel can exacerbate or alleviate parents’ negative reactions to positive NBS results.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1367493512443906

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 10.1111/j.1399-0004.1990.tb03613.x · DOI
  2. 10.1258/jrsm.2008.s18006 · DOI
  3. 10.1177/1367493507085615 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.12.003 · DOI
  5. Bowers B, 2009, Developing Grounded Theory in the Second Generation, 86
  6. 10.1542/peds.107.4.699 · DOI
  7. Collins JL, Patient Education & Counseling
  8. 10.1207/S15327027HC1602_4 · DOI
  9. 10.1056/NEJM199710023371403 · DOI
  10. 10.1542/peds.107.1.1 · DOI
  11. 10.1007/s10545-005-0135-5 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.jcf.2010.04.001 · DOI
  13. 10.1177/0009922810361380 · DOI
  14. 10.1007/s10545-006-0381-1 · DOI
  15. 10.1177/1049732305276687 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Jedlicka-Köhler I, 1996, Pediatrics, 97, 204, 10.1542/peds.97.2.204 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/j.0737-1209.2005.220408.x · DOI
  18. Krippendorff K, 2004, Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology
  19. 10.1542/peds.2005-0449 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2006.00917.x · DOI
  21. 10.1177/1367493509347060 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.jcf.2006.09.001 · DOI
  23. 10.1136/fn.88.6.F467 · DOI
  24. 10.1186/1750-1172-5-17 · DOI
  25. Tluczek A, 2005, Pediatric Pulmonology, 28, 179
  26. 10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181dd5049 · DOI
  27. 10.1542/peds.2004-0275 · DOI
  28. 10.1177/1049732309356285 · DOI
  29. 10.1177/1049732310382919 · DOI
  30. 10.1097/JPN.0b013e3181a1bc1f · DOI
  31. Wilson JMG, 1968, Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 69

Metadata

Authors
Salm, N., Yetter, E., & Tluczek, A.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin, USA
Corresponding author
Tluczek, Audrey
Venue
Journal of Child Health Care
Published
2012-09-14
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
367-381
ISSN
  • 1367-4935 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2889
OpenAlex
W2154207918
Cited by
69
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Child Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000427)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025011)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23 HD42098, K23HD042098)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
newborn screening, positive screening results, parental reactions, provider-patient communication, congenital hypothyroidism, cystic fibrosis, cystic fibrosis carriers, telephone communication, parental distress, parental guilt, communication recommendations
MeSH terms
Adult, Communication, Congenital Hypothyroidism, Cystic Fibrosis, Female, Genetic Carrier Screening, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Newborn, Diseases, Interviews as Topic, Male, Parents, Neonatal Screening

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review