2010
DOI: 10.3768/rtipress.2010.mr.0014.1002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Developing a Conjoint Analysis Survey of Parental Attitudes Regarding Voluntary Newborn Screening

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[13][14][15][16]55 whereas studies that have explicitly considered harms (although not overdiagnosis) showed some acknowledgment by parents or members of the public but do not illuminate how harms and benefits should be traded off. 1,9,54,56 These findings also add to a broader literature on attitudes toward population screening by exploring several complex harms. [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66] Specifically, that 100% of our respondents showed a statistically significant preference to avoid harms (FPs, overdiagnosis) is important, because misunderstanding of risk-based harms is common, 67 and recent work exploring attitudes toward overdiagnosis in the context of breast cancer screening has shown considerable confusion as well as limited valuation.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 56%
“…[13][14][15][16]55 whereas studies that have explicitly considered harms (although not overdiagnosis) showed some acknowledgment by parents or members of the public but do not illuminate how harms and benefits should be traded off. 1,9,54,56 These findings also add to a broader literature on attitudes toward population screening by exploring several complex harms. [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66] Specifically, that 100% of our respondents showed a statistically significant preference to avoid harms (FPs, overdiagnosis) is important, because misunderstanding of risk-based harms is common, 67 and recent work exploring attitudes toward overdiagnosis in the context of breast cancer screening has shown considerable confusion as well as limited valuation.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 56%
“…Based on a literature review 19 and input from clinicians, genetic counselors, and geneticists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), we developed our DCE using an initial set of attributes and attribute levels. These attributes and levels were then refined using input from 10 cognitive interviews conducted with parents of children under the age of 5 years.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%