Search

The NASA Human System Risk Board (HSRB) has the overall responsibility for tracking the evolution of the top ~30 human system risks that it has identified to be associated with human spaceflight. As part of this process, the Board is charged with maintaining a consistent, integrated process to mitigate those risks, and developing evidence-based risk posture recommendations. One of the identified risks is due to inadequate human systems integration architecture (HSIA) and a driving factor of this risk is that given decreasing real-time ground support for execution of complex operations during future exploration missions, there is a possibility of adverse performance outcomes including that crew are unable to adequately respond to unanticipated critical malfunctions or detect safety critical procedural errors. The HSRB uses Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) as a communication tool for describing how astronaut exposure to spaceflight hazards leads to meaningful mission-level health and performance outcomes and as the basis for understanding intermediate causal relationships between risk contributing factors and countermeasures that link hazards to outcomes. The HSIA risk DAG will be presented and described. Historically, critical malfunctions requiring Crew/MCC management occurred at a rate of 1.7 times per year for ISS averaged over the lifetime and 3-4 times per year in the burn in phase for the vehicle. These averages do not include EVA data, which greatly increases the incident rate. Prior experience from the Apollo program showed 10/11 crewed missions experienced significant anomalies where crew relied heavily on MCC expertise in real-time. These failure patterns are in line with those observed in other complex engineered systems (e.g., oil rigs, launch systems, commercial aviation, etc.) It is likely that general malfunction and error rates are > 10% for short duration missions (

Importance Newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) may provide health benefits throughout the life span, but there are concerns that it could also have an unfavorable (ie, negative) psychosocial effect on families. Objective To assess the psychosocial effect of nGS on families from the BabySeq Project, a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of nGS on the clinical care of newborns from well-baby nurseries and intensive care units. Design, Setting, and Participants In this randomized clinical trial conducted from May 14, 2015, to May 21, 2019, at well-baby nurseries and intensive care units at 3 Boston, Massachusetts, area hospitals, 519 parents of 325 infants completed surveys at enrollment, immediately after disclosure of nGS results, and 3 and 10 months after results disclosure. Statistical analysis was performed on a per-protocol basis from January 16, 2019, to December 1, 2019. Intervention Newborns were randomized to receive either standard newborn screening and a family history report (control group) or the same plus an nGS report of childhood-onset conditions and highly actionable adult-onset conditions (nGS group). Main Outcomes and Measures Mean responses were compared between groups and, within the nGS group, between parents of children who received a monogenic disease risk finding and those who did not in 3 domains of psychosocial impact: parent-child relationship (Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale), parents’ relationship (Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale), and parents’ psychological distress (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale anxiety subscale). Results A total of 519 parents (275 women [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 35.1 [4.5] years) were included in this study. Although mean scores differed for some outcomes at singular time points, generalized estimating equations models did not show meaningful differences in parent-child relationship (between-group difference in adjusted mean [SE] Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale scores: postdisclosure, 0.04 [0.15]; 3 months, –0.18 [0.18]; 10 months, –0.07 [0.20]; jointP = .57) or parents’ psychological distress (between-group ratio of adjusted mean [SE] Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale anxiety subscale scores: postdisclosure, 1.04 [0.08]; 3 months, 1.07 [0.11]; jointP = .80) response patterns between study groups over time for any measures analyzed in these 2 domains. Response patterns on one parents’ relationship measure differed between groups over time (between-group difference in adjusted mean [SE] Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale scores: postdisclosure, –0.19 [0.07]; 3 months, –0.04 [0.07]; and 10 months, –0.01 [0.08]; jointP = .02), but the effect decreased over time and no difference was observed on the conflict measure responses over time. We found no evidence of persistent negative psychosocial effect in any domain. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of nGS, there was no persistent negative psychosocial effect on families among those who received nGS nor among those who received a monogenic disease risk finding for their infant. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02422511

Purpose Newborn screening (NBS) is performed to identify neonates at risk for actionable, severe, early-onset disorders, many of which are genetic. The BabySeq Project randomized neonates to receive conventional NBS or NBS plus exome sequencing (ES) capable of detecting sequence variants that may also diagnose monogenic disease or indicate genetic disease risk. We therefore evaluated how ES and conventional NBS results differ in this population. Methods We compared results of NBS (including hearing screens) and ES for 159 infants in the BabySeq Project. Infants were considered "NBS positive" if any abnormal result was found indicating disease risk and "ES positive" if ES identified a monogenic disease risk or a genetic diagnosis. Results Most infants (132/159, 84%) were NBS and ES negative. Only one infant was positive for the same disorder by both modalities. Nine infants were NBS positive/ES negative, though seven of these were subsequently determined to be false positives. Fifteen infants were ES positive/NBS negative, all of which represented risk of genetic conditions that are not included in NBS programs. No genetic explanation was identified for eight infants referred on the hearing screen. Conclusion These differences highlight the complementarity of information that may be gleaned from NBS and ES in the newborn period.

Genomic sequencing provides many opportunities in newborn clinical care, but the challenges of interpreting and reporting newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) results need to be addressed for its broader and effective application. The BabySeq Project is a pilot randomized clinical trial that explores the medical, behavioral, and economic impacts of nGS in well newborns and those admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Here we present childhood-onset and actionable adult-onset disease risk, carrier status, and pharmacogenomics findings from nGS of 159 newborns in the BabySeq Project. nGS revealed a risk of childhood-onset disease in 15/159 (9.4%) newborns; none of the disease risks were anticipated based on the infants' known clinical or family histories. nGS also revealed actionable adult-onset disease risk in 3/85 (3.5%) newborns whose parents consented to receive this information. Carrier status for recessive diseases and pharmacogenomics variants were reported in 88% and 5% of newborns, respectively. Additional indication-based analyses were performed in 29/32 (91%) NICU newborns and 6/127 (5%) healthy newborns who later had presentations that prompted a diagnostic analysis. No variants that sufficiently explained the reason for the indications were identified; however, suspicious but uncertain results were reported in five newborns. Testing parental samples contributed to the interpretation and reporting of results in 13/159 (8%) newborns. Our results suggest that nGS can effectively detect risk and carrier status for a wide range of disorders that are not detectable by current newborn screening assays or predicted based on the infant's known clinical or family history, and the interpretation of results can substantially benefit from parental testing.

Purpose: Newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) has great potential to improve pediatric care. Parental interest and concerns about genomics are relatively unexplored. Understanding why parents decline research consent for nGS may reveal implementation barriers. Methods: We evaluated parental interest in a randomized trial of nGS in well-baby and ICU nursery settings. Interested families attended an informational enrollment session (ES) with a genetic counselor prior to consenting. Reason(s) for declining participation and sociodemographic associations were analyzed. Results: Of 3,860 eligible approached families, 10% attended ES, 67% of whom enrolled. Of 1,760 families queried for decline reasons, 58% were uninterested in research. Among 499 families considering research, principal reasons for decline prior to ES included burdensome study logistics (48%), feeling overwhelmed postpartum (17%), and lack of interest/discomfort with genetic testing (17%). Decliners after ES more often cited concerns about privacy/insurability (41%) and uncertain/unfavorable results (23%). Conclusions: Low interest in research and study logistics were major initial barriers to postpartum enrollment and are likely generic to many postpartum research efforts. Concerns over privacy and result implications were most commonly cited in decliners after ES. Understanding parental concerns around research nGS may inform future integration of nGS into newborn screening, predictive testing, and pediatric diagnostics.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is interest in applying genomic sequencing (GS) to newborns’ clinical care. Here we explore parents’ and clinicians’ attitudes toward and perceptions of the risks, benefits, and utility of newborn GS compared with newborn screening (NBS) prior to receiving study results. METHODS: The BabySeq Project is a randomized controlled trial used to explore the impact of integrating GS into the clinical care of newborns. Parents (n = 493) of enrolled infants (n = 309) and clinicians (n = 144) completed a baseline survey at enrollment. We examined between-group differences in perceived utility and attitudes toward NBS and GS. Open-ended responses about risks and benefits of each technology were categorized by theme. RESULTS: The majority of parents (71%) and clinicians (51%) agreed that there are health benefits of GS, although parents and clinicians agreed more that there are risks associated with GS (35%, 70%) than with NBS (19%, 39%; all P < .05). Parents perceived more benefit and less risk of GS than did clinicians. Clinicians endorsed concerns about privacy and discrimination related to genomic information more strongly than did parents, and parents anticipated benefits of GS that clinicians did not. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and clinicians are less confident in GS than NBS, but parents perceive a more favorable risk/benefit ratio of GS than do clinicians. Clinicians should be aware that parents’ optimism may stem from their perceived benefits beyond clinical utility.

The Tele-Lactation Pilot Project (TLPP), 1 of 13 community-based breastfeeding projects implemented in Indiana in 2013 using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grant funds, explored the feasibility of using videoconferencing technology to provide breastfeeding education and support to low-income women by a centrally located International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (IBCLC). The IBCLC was housed at the Breastfeeding Center at the hospital where the women would deliver; the women receiving the education and support were located at an inner-city community health center (CHC) where they received their primary care. The videoconferencing sessions were juxtaposed with the women’s regularly scheduled prenatal and postnatal visits at the CHC. After delivery, the lactation consultant visited the mother and infant in person at the hospital to offer additional support. Overall, 35 mothers were served by the TLPP during the 9-month project period. A total of 134 visits (30-45 minutes each) were conducted (3.8 sessions per woman). At the conclusion of the project, interviews with key participants indicated that the tele-lactation videoconferencing sessions were easy to implement, allowed the IBCLC to reach a wider client base, and allowed the women to receive expert support that they might not have otherwise received. Comments indicated that, in addition to providing education and increasing the women’s confidence, the tele-lactation sessions appeared to have decreased the mothers’ anxiety about the birthing process and the hospital experience. The TLPP demonstrated that incorporating videoconferencing technology into routine care can help foster collaboration among health care providers and provide mothers with continuous, easily accessible breastfeeding education and support.