Analysis of educational materials and destruction/opt-out initiatives for storage and use of residual newborn screening samples.

In recent years, the storage and use of residual newborn screening (NBS) samples has gained attention. To inform ongoing policy discussions, this article provides an update of previous work on new policies, educational materials, and parental options regarding the storage and use of residual NBS samples. A review of state NBS Web sites was conducted for information related to the storage and use of residual NBS samples in January 2010. In addition, a review of current statutes and bills introduced between 2005 and 2009 regarding storage and/or use of residual NBS samples was conducted. Fourteen states currently provide information about the storage and/or use of residual NBS samples. Nine states provide parents the option to request destruction of the residual NBS sample after the required storage period or the option to exclude the sample for research uses. In the coming years, it is anticipated that more states will consider policies to address parental concerns about the storage and use of residual NBS samples. Development of new policies regarding storage and use of residual NBS samples will require careful consideration of impact on NBS programs, parent and provider educational materials, and respect for parents among other issues.

Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey.

BACKGROUND: A Royal Statistical Society Working Party recently recommended that "Greater use should be made of numerical, as opposed to verbal, descriptions of risk" in first-in-man clinical trials. This echoed the view of many clinicians and psychologists about risk communication. As the clinical trial industry expands rapidly across the globe, it is important to understand risk communication in Asian countries. METHODS: We conducted a cognitive experiment about participation in a hypothetical clinical trial of a pain relief medication and a survey in cancer and arthritis patients in Singapore. In part 1 of the experiment, the patients received information about the risk of side effects in one of three formats (frequency, percentage and verbal descriptor) and in one of two sequences (from least to most severe and from most to least severe), and were asked about their willingness to participate. In part 2, the patients received information about the risk in all three formats, in the same sequence, and were again asked about their willingness to participate. A survey of preference for risk presentation methods and usage of verbal descriptors immediately followed. RESULTS: Willingness to participate and the likelihood of changing one's decision were not affected by the risk presentation methods. Most patients indicated a preference for the frequency format, but patients with primary school or no formal education were indifferent. While the patients used the verbal descriptors "very common", "common" and "very rare" in ways similar to the European Commission's Guidelines, their usage of the descriptors "uncommon" and "rare" was substantially different from the EU's. CONCLUSION: In this sample of Asian cancer and arthritis patients, risk presentation format had no impact on willingness to participate in a clinical trial. However, there is a clear preference for the frequency format. The lay use of verbal descriptors was substantially different from the EU's.