1
|
Razvi Y, Horwitz SL, Cressman C, Wang DE, Shaul RZ, Denburg A. Priority-setting for hospital funding of high-cost innovative drugs and therapeutics: A qualitative institutional case study. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0300519. [PMID: 38498497 PMCID: PMC10947676 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300519] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2023] [Accepted: 02/28/2024] [Indexed: 03/20/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Rising costs of innovative drugs and therapeutics (D&Ts) have led to resource allocation challenges for healthcare institutions. There is limited evidence to guide priority-setting for institutional funding of high-cost D&Ts. This study sought to identify and elaborate on the substantive principles and procedures that should inform institutional funding decisions for high-cost off-formulary D&Ts through a case study of a quaternary care paediatric hospital. METHODS Semi-structured, qualitative interviews, both virtual and in-person, were conducted with institutional stakeholders (i.e. staff clinicians, senior leadership, and pharmacists) (n = 23) and two focus groups at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada. Participants involved in, and impacted by, high-cost off-formulary drug funding decisions were recruited through stratified, purposive sampling. Participants were approached for study involvement between July 27, 2020 and June 7, 2022. Data was analysed through reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS Institutional resource allocation for high-cost D&Ts was identified as ethically challenging but critical to sustainable access to novel therapies. Important substantive principles included: 1) clinical evidence of safety and efficacy, 2) economic considerations (direct costs, opportunity costs, value for money), 3) ethical principles (social justice, professional/organizational responsibility), and 4) disease-specific considerations. Multidisciplinary deliberation was identified as an essential procedural component of decision-making. Participants identified tension between innovation and the need for evidence-based decision-making; clinician and institutional responsibilities; and value for money and social justice. Participants emphasized the role of health system-level funding allocation in alleviating the financial and moral burden of decision-making by institutions. CONCLUSIONS This study identifies values and processes to aid in the development and implementation of institutional resource allocation frameworks for high-cost innovative D&Ts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasmeen Razvi
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Simonne L. Horwitz
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Celine Cressman
- SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Daniel E. Wang
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Randi Zlotnik Shaul
- SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Bioethics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Avram Denburg
- SickKids Research Institute, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Paediatrics, Division of Haematology/Oncology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Subasri M, Cressman C, Arje D, Schreyer L, Cooper E, Patel K, Ungar WJ, Barwick M, Denburg A, Hayeems RZ. Translating Precision Health for Pediatrics: A Scoping Review. Children (Basel) 2023; 10:children10050897. [PMID: 37238445 DOI: 10.3390/children10050897] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2023] [Revised: 05/09/2023] [Accepted: 05/11/2023] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
Precision health aims to personalize treatment and prevention strategies based on individual genetic differences. While it has significantly improved healthcare for specific patient groups, broader translation faces challenges with evidence development, evidence appraisal, and implementation. These challenges are compounded in child health as existing methods fail to incorporate the physiology and socio-biology unique to childhood. This scoping review synthesizes the existing literature on evidence development, appraisal, prioritization, and implementation of precision child health. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched. The included articles were related to pediatrics, precision health, and the translational pathway. Articles were excluded if they were too narrow in scope. In total, 74 articles identified challenges and solutions for putting pediatric precision health interventions into practice. The literature reinforced the unique attributes of children and their implications for study design and identified major themes for the value assessment of precision health interventions for children, including clinical benefit, cost-effectiveness, stakeholder values and preferences, and ethics and equity. Tackling these identified challenges will require developing international data networks and guidelines, re-thinking methods for value assessment, and broadening stakeholder support for the effective implementation of precision health within healthcare organizations. This research was funded by the SickKids Precision Child Health Catalyst Grant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mathushan Subasri
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
| | - Celine Cressman
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
| | - Danielle Arje
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
| | - Leighton Schreyer
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
| | - Erin Cooper
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
| | - Komal Patel
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
| | - Wendy J Ungar
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
- Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada
| | - Melanie Barwick
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
- Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada
| | - Avram Denburg
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
- Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada
- Division of Haematology/Oncology, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
| | - Robin Z Hayeems
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
- Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cressman C, Miller FA, Guttmann A, Cairney J, Hayeems RZ. Policy Rogue or Policy Entrepreneur? The Forms and Impacts of "Joined-Up Governance" for Child Health. Children (Basel) 2021; 8:221. [PMID: 33805621 PMCID: PMC8001209 DOI: 10.3390/children8030221] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2021] [Revised: 03/08/2021] [Accepted: 03/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Joined-up governance (JUG) approaches have gained attention as mechanisms for tackling wicked policy problems, particularly in intersectoral areas such as child health, where multiple ministries that deliver health and social services must collaborate if they are to be effective. Growing attention to the need to invest in early childhood to improve health and developmental trajectories, including through developmental screening, illustrate the challenges of JUG for child health. Using a comparative case study design comprised of the qualitative analysis of documents and key informant interviews, this work sought to explain how and why visible differences in policy choices have been made across two Canadian jurisdictions (Ontario and Manitoba). Specifically, we sought to understand two dimensions of governance (structure and process) alongside an illustrative example-the case of developmental screening, including how insiders viewed the impacts of governance arrangements in this instance. The two jurisdictions shared a commitment to evidence-based policy making and a similar vision of JUG for child health. Despite this, we found divergence in both governance arrangements and outcomes for developmental screening. In Manitoba, collaboration was prioritized, interests were aligned in a structured decision-making process, evidence and evaluation capacity were inherent to agenda setting, and implementation was considered up front. In Ontario, interests were not aligned and instead decision making operated in an opaque and siloed manner, with little consideration of implementation issues. In these contexts, Ontario pursued developmental screening, whereas Manitoba did not. While both jurisdictions aimed at JUG, only Manitoba developed a coordinated JUG system, whereas Ontario operated as a non-system. As a result, Manitoba's governance system had the capacity to stop 'rogue' action, prioritizing investments in accordance with authorized evidence. In contrast, in the absence of a formal system in Ontario, policy 'entrepreneurs' were able to seize a window of opportunity to invest in child health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celine Cressman
- Better Outcomes Registry and Network (BORN Ontario), Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L1, Canada;
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada; (A.G.); (R.Z.H.)
| | - Fiona A. Miller
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada
| | - Astrid Guttmann
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada; (A.G.); (R.Z.H.)
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
- Department of Paediatrics, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
| | - John Cairney
- School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
| | - Robin Z. Hayeems
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada; (A.G.); (R.Z.H.)
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sturdy S, Miller F, Hogarth S, Armstrong N, Chakraborty P, Cressman C, Dobrow M, Flitcroft K, Grossman D, Harris R, Hoebee B, Holloway K, Kinsinger L, Krag M, Löblová O, Löwy I, Mackie A, Marshall J, O'Hallahan J, Rabeneck L, Raffle A, Reid L, Shortland G, Steele R, Tarini B, Taylor-Phillips S, Towler B, van der Veen N, Zappa M. Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening. Wellcome Open Res 2020; 5:158. [PMID: 32923689 PMCID: PMC7468564 DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16057.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/11/2020] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: In their landmark report on the "Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease" (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of "screening governance organizations" to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steve Sturdy
- Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH1 1LZ, UK.,Centre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9LN, UK
| | - Fiona Miller
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada
| | - Stuart Hogarth
- Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1SB, UK
| | | | | | - Celine Cressman
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada
| | - Mark Dobrow
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada
| | | | - David Grossman
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, USA
| | | | - Barbara Hoebee
- National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
| | - Kelly Holloway
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada
| | | | - Marlene Krag
- Danish Health and Medicines Authority, Kobenhavn, Denmark
| | - Olga Löblová
- Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1SB, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Bernie Towler
- Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra, Australia
| | - Nynke van der Veen
- National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
| | - Marco Zappa
- Instituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica, Firenze, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sturdy S, Miller F, Hogarth S, Armstrong N, Chakraborty P, Cressman C, Dobrow M, Flitcroft K, Grossman D, Harris R, Hoebee B, Holloway K, Kinsinger L, Krag M, Löblová O, Löwy I, Mackie A, Marshall J, O'Hallahan J, Rabeneck L, Raffle A, Reid L, Shortland G, Steele R, Tarini B, Taylor-Phillips S, Towler B, van der Veen N, Zappa M. Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening. Wellcome Open Res 2020; 5:158. [DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16057.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/23/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: In their landmark report on the “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease” (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of “screening governance organizations” to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by the three lead authors. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.
Collapse
|
6
|
Hayeems RZ, Miller FA, Barg CJ, Bombard Y, Cressman C, Painter-Main M, Wilson B, Little J, Allanson J, Avard D, Giguere Y, Chakraborty P, Carroll JC. Using Newborn Screening Bloodspots for Research: Public Preferences for Policy Options. Pediatrics 2016; 137:peds.2015-4143. [PMID: 27244855 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-4143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/25/2016] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Retaining residual newborn screening (NBS) bloodspots for medical research remains contentious. To inform this debate, we sought to understand public preferences for, and reasons for preferring, alternative policy options. METHODS We assessed preferences among 4 policy options for research use of residual bloodspots through a bilingual national Internet survey of a representative sample of Canadians. Fifty percent of respondents were randomly assigned to select reasons supporting these preferences. Understanding of and attitudes toward screening and research concepts, and demographics were assessed. RESULTS Of 1102 respondents (94% participation rate; 47% completion rate), the overall preference among policy options was ask permission (67%); this option was also the most acceptable choice (80%). Assume permission was acceptable to 46%, no permission required was acceptable to 29%, and no research allowed was acceptable to 26%. The acceptability of the ask permission option was reduced among participants assigned to the reasoning exercise (84% vs 76%; P = .004). Compared with assume/no permission required, ordered logistic regression showed a significant reduction in preference for the ask permission option with greater understanding of concepts (odds ratio, 0.87; P < .001), greater confidence in science (odds ratio, 0.16; P < .001), and a perceived responsibility to contribute to research (odds ratio, 0.39; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Surveyed Canadians prefer that explicit permission is sought for storage and research use of NBS bloodspots. This preference was diminished when reasons supporting and opposing routine storage, and other policy options, were presented. Findings warrant consideration as NBS communities strategize to respond to shifting legislative contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robin Z Hayeems
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Fiona A Miller
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
| | - Carolyn J Barg
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Yvonne Bombard
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Celine Cressman
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Michael Painter-Main
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Brenda Wilson
- School of Epidemiology, Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Julian Little
- School of Epidemiology, Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Judith Allanson
- Departments of Genetics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, and Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Denise Avard
- Centre for Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Yves Giguere
- Departments of Medical Biology, CHU de Québec, and Molecular Biology, Medical Biochemistry and Pathology, Université Laval, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; and
| | - Pranesh Chakraborty
- Departments of Genetics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, and Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - June C Carroll
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, Sinai Health System, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bombard Y, Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Barg C, Cressman C, Carroll JC, Wilson BJ, Little J, Avard D, Painter-Main M, Allanson J, Giguere Y, Chakraborty P. Public views on participating in newborn screening using genome sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet 2014; 22:1248-54. [PMID: 24549052 PMCID: PMC4200434 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2013] [Revised: 01/17/2014] [Accepted: 01/22/2014] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Growing discussion on the use of whole-genome or exome sequencing (WG/ES) in newborn screening (NBS) has raised concerns regarding the generation of incidental information on millions of infants annually. It is unknown whether integrating WG/ES would alter public expectations regarding participation in universal NBS. We assessed public willingness to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with current NBS. Our secondary objective was to assess the public's beliefs regarding a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS compared with current NBS. We examined self-reported attitudes regarding willingness to participate in NBS using a cross-sectional national survey of Canadian residents recruited through an internet panel, reflective of the Canadian population by age, gender and region. Our results showed that fewer respondents would be willing to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with NBS using current technologies (80 vs 94%, P<0.001), or perceived a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS vs current NBS (30 vs 48%, P<0.001). Our findings suggest that integrating WG/ES into NBS might reduce participation, and challenge the moral authority that NBS programmes rely upon to ensure population benefits. These findings point to the need for caution in the untargeted use of WG/ES in public health contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yvonne Bombard
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Fiona A Miller
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robin Z Hayeems
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Carolyn Barg
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Celine Cressman
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - June C Carroll
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Brenda J Wilson
- Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Julian Little
- Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Denise Avard
- Centre for Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Michael Painter-Main
- Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Judith Allanson
- Department of Genetics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Yves Giguere
- Quebec Blood Newborn Screening Program, Department of Medical Biology, CHU de Quebec, Charlesbourg, Quebec, Canada
- Department of Molecular Biology, Medical Biochemistry and Pathology, University of Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
| | - Pranesh Chakraborty
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Newborn Screening Ontario, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|