Peer-reviewed article
Addressing the Global Crisis of Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Tami D. Benton, Rhonda C. Boyd, Wanjikũ Njoroge ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view ·Key points
Limitations
Abstract
harms do not appear in the first 10 months of life.What happens in the US health care landscape is beyond the scope of the larger BabySeq study but is a critical future step both in this area of research and for decision-making about the widespread use of WES in newborns.Moving forward, society will have to make the collective decision about the value of WES for newborns.The BabySeq data on harms early in life and the information and diagnoses received (15 newborns had a monogenic disease risk for a childhood-onset illness and 3 had a monogenic disease risk for an adult-onset illness; 88% received carrier status and 5% received pharmacogenomic variants) paint an early picture of the net gain of WES for newborns.11 As a society, how much are we willing to pay for this information, knowing that our resources are not infinite, and every dollar spent on WES for newborns is a dollar not spent on another health service?This is not an easy question to answer in a country whose infant mortality ranks 34th according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.12 Publication bias is real and bad for science.13 This study by Pereira et al 1 highlights the importance of "negative" studies (ie, adequately powered studies that do not have statistically significant results).Although one individual study cannot prove the null hypothesis, several sound "negative" studies can decrease the likelihood that an important signal has been missed.Pereira et al 1 have provided us that first step.