Expansion of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) can increase health gain for more children but also increases the number of false-positive and uncertain results. The impact of abnormal and inconclusive NBS results on parental well-being and healthcare utilization was investigated. A questionnaire was sent to Dutch parents receiving an abnormal or inconclusive NBS result five weeks (T1) and four months (T2) post-NBS and compared to parents with a normal result (controls). In total, 35 true-positive (TP), 20 false-positive (FP), and 57 inconclusive (IC) participants and 268 controls filled out T1; 19 TP, 14 FP, 27 IC, and 116 controls filled out T2. Participants showed positive attitudes towards NBS. FP participants more often considered NBS less reliable. TP and FP participants experienced more negative emotions regarding the test result compared to controls at both T1 and T2, and IC only at T1. Parent-reported child vulnerability and perceptions of the newborn’s health status and of parenthood showed no differences. TP and FP participants reported more healthcare utilization at T1, and mainly TP at T2. TP and IC participants showed more emergency department visits at T1. The findings can be used to improve NBS programs and optimize support for families with various NBS results.

Inconclusive and false-positive newborn screening (NBS) results can cause parental stress and increase healthcare expenditures. These results can be reduced by improving NBS algorithms. This was recently done for Congenital Hypothyroidism (CH), Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) and Maple Syrup Urine Disease (MSUD) in the Dutch NBS program. The current study estimates the financial consequences of these improved algorithms related to the reduction in inconclusive results and false-positives. For each improved algorithm, the care pathway of an inconclusive/false-positive result was analyzed. The costs associated with the improvements, based on the change in inconclusive results/false-positives, were assessed to estimate the cost reduction per year. The improvements resulted in a reduction of inconclusive results and/or false-positives, without increasing false-negatives. For CH, false positives decreased by 26 per year with a related cost reduction of EUR 31,156. For CAH, 95 second heel punctures and seven false-positives per year were avoided, leading to a related cost reduction of EUR 7340. For MSUD, five false-positives per year were avoided with a related cost reduction of EUR 11,336. The improved screening algorithms led to a cost reduction of EUR 49,832 annually. Together with the known negative psychosocial effects associated with an inconclusive or false-positive NBS result, these results highlight the importance of improving NBS algorithms.

Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) aims to detect treatable disorders in newborns to offer early interventions. According to the official Dutch national NBS guidance, parents in the Netherlands should be informed about NBS during pregnancy by maternity care providers (MCPs), providing two leaflets and oral information. This study investigated what, how, and when information about NBS is given during pregnancy according to Dutch MCPs. An online questionnaire was completed by 279 MCPs; 237 (84.9%) provided information to parents themselves, although 4.6% of them only did so postnatally, and 240 (86.0%) considered this the task of the MCP. Among the 237 MCPs, information was provided by personal conversation (59.9%) and by giving at least one leaflet (83.1%), while 25.7% only gave leaflets. Being a first pregnancy (45.1%) and parents’ literacy (38.8%) influenced how MCPs provided information. Information was mostly provided at 34–37 weeks gestation (68.8%). Conversations mostly included giving information on when NBS will be performed (97.2%), the purpose of NBS (93.7%), how the test will be performed (92.3%), and participation being voluntary (80.3%). The results suggest that while most Dutch MCPs consider it their task to provide NBS information, its timing, method, and completeness do not always follow the established guidelines.

In the Netherlands, the newborn screening (NBS) program includes screening for propionic aciduria (PA) and methylmalonic aciduria (MMA). When initial screening reveals elevated C3 concentrations or abnormal ratios (C3/C2, C3/C16), a second-tier test measuring methylcitric acid (MCA) for PA and methylmalonic acid (MMA^mb) for MMA is performed. While this two-tier approach reduces false positives effectively, it can delay referral from the NBS program and diagnosis of propionic aciduria. We describe four early-onset PA cases in which the current Dutch screening algorithm negatively impacted clinical outcomes, highlighting the need for expedited referral. We investigated different alternative screening strategies to identify the most effective approach for improving timeliness, while maintaining the high specificity of Dutch PA NBS. This revised approach prioritizes the evaluation of the C3/C2 ratio in first-tier screening. Specifically, samples with a C3/C2 ratio ≥ 0.75 should be referred directly for medical consultation and confirmatory testing. For all other samples with less pronounced biochemical abnormalities, the existing two-tier screening algorithm remains an appropriate NBS protocol. To position our approach internationally, a survey of European NBS programs was conducted to compare screening and referral protocols for PA across the region.

Newborn screening (NBS) for inherited metabolic diseases (IMD) aims to find children in which immediate action can prevent severe symptoms. We previously studied parental satisfaction with the communication of the NBS result for phenylketonuria, which in the Netherlands is done by the general practitioners (GPs). More than half of all parents were unsatisfied with the communication of the abnormal NBS result. The aim of this qualitative exploratory study was to portray a number of GPs’ opinions and experiences in communicating an abnormal metabolic NBS result. We performed semi-structured interviews with ten GPs to evaluate the process of communicating the abnormal NBS result. An additional two GPs provided their answers via email. The data revealed four key themes: (1) dealing with the urgency of the metabolic NBS result, (2) the role of the GP in the NBS process, (3) the current organization of NBS in the Netherlands and (4) evaluating roles and responsibilities in communicating abnormal metabolic NBS results. Despite the willingness of GPs to inform parents about NBS results, it is questionable whether they have the necessary tools to effectively conduct these conversations given their limited experience with IMDs. In light of the increasing number of diseases in the NBS program, it would be interesting to explore alternative tools for communicating the NBS result to parents.