Show Notes
Peters R et al., The American Journal of Human Genetics - This episode reviews a nationwide survey of 2,509 Australian adults using two discrete choice experiments to quantify public preferences and the monetary value placed on genomic newborn screening (gNBS), and to identify preferred implementation features such as consent model and result delivery. Key terms: genomic newborn screening, discrete choice experiment, public preferences, health policy, Australia.
Study Highlights:
Two discrete choice experiments with 2,509 Australian participants reveal a broad public preference for gNBS, with cost identified as the strongest influence on uptake. Higher accuracy and more additional diagnoses increase public utility, but including conditions with limited or no treatments and reduced penetrance reduces value. The public values a gNBS program that yields 10–50 additional diagnoses per 1,000 newborns at AU$4,600–5,700 per newborn for restrictive models. Most respondents preferred an opt-in consent model and favored initial information from GPs or obstetricians and high-chance results returned by genetics professionals.
Conclusion:
Australian public preferences support implementation of gNBS if programs balance cost, accuracy, and condition selection, and if service delivery prioritizes trusted clinicians and genetics professionals for complex results; findings should inform economic evaluations and implementation planning.
Music:
Enjoy the music based on this article at the end of the episode.
Article title:
Public preferences for the value and implementation of genomic newborn screening: Insights from two discrete choice experiments in Australia
First author:
Peters R
Journal:
The American Journal of Human Genetics
DOI:
10.1016/j.ajhg.2025.05.001
Reference:
Peters R., Best S., Lynch F., et al. Public preferences for the value and implementation of genomic newborn screening: Insights from two discrete choice experiments in Australia. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 112:1–13, July 3, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2025.05.001
License:
This episode is based on an open-access article published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) – https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Support:
Base by Base – Stripe donations: https://donate.stripe.com/7sY4gz71B2sN3RWac5gEg00
Official website https://basebybase.com
On PaperCast Base by Base you'll discover the latest in genomics, functional genomics, structural genomics, and proteomics.
Episode link: https://basebybase.com/episodes/gnbs-public-preferences-australia
QC:
This episode was checked against the original article PDF and publication metadata for the episode release published on 2025-06-10.
QC Scope:
- article metadata and core scientific claims from the narration
- excludes analogies, intro/outro, and music
- transcript coverage: Audited core scientific claims and quantitative results described in the transcript: public interest and uptake, cost as a driver, monetary valuation for restrictive vs non-restrictive gNBS, four latent classes, implementation preferences (delivery and return of results), and policy/workforce implications.
- transcript topics: Genomic newborn screening concept and ethical considerations; Discrete choice experiments (DCE) methodology and latent class analysis; Public value results: uptake, trade-offs, and monetary valuation; Implementation preferences: who informs and who returns results, delivery modes; Policy implications: workforce training and service-delivery models; Study limitations and design considerations
QC Summary:
- factual score: 10/10
- metadata score: 10/10
- supported core claims: 6
- claims flagged for review: 0
- metadata checks passed: 4
- metadata issues found: 0
Metadata Audited:
- article_doi
- article_title
- article_journal
- license
Factual Items Audited:
- Public interest in gNBS (~90%) and uptake (>87%)
- Cost is the primary driver of uptake
- Monetary value: AU$4,600–5,700 per newborn for 10–50 additional diagnoses per 1,000 (restrictive); AU$5,400 per newborn for non-restrictive
- Four latent classes with proportions: Class1 ~13%, Class2 ~28%, Class3 ~42%, Class4 ~17%
QC result: Pass.
