A universal framework for the evaluation of the benefit-risk assessment of medicines during development by pharmaceutical companies and in the regulatory review by regulatory authorities is considered of value, as it would result in the systematic structured approach to support transparency in decision making. Several organizations have developed frameworks over the past few years, including those recommended by pharmaceutical companies such as the PhRMA BRAT (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Benefit-Risk Action Team) and the BRAIN (Benefit-Risk Assessment in New and Old Drugs) as well as frameworks advanced by regulatory agencies, including the FDA 5-step framework and the EMA PrOACT-URL. However, a review of the criteria-including logical soundness, comprehensiveness, acceptability of results, practicality, specificity and sensitivity, presentation (visualization), and scope proposed for the development of a universal framework-demonstrated that all these different frameworks described can be incorporated into UMBRA (Universal Methodology for Benefit-Risk Assessment).

Stakeholders prefer a semi-quantitative, overarching framework that incorporates a toolbox of different methodologies. A coordinating committee of relevant stakeholders should be formed to guide its development and implementation. Through engaging the stakeholders, these outcomes confirm sentiments and need for developing a universal benefit-risk assessment framework.

Overall, the authorities believed that the project had given them a better understanding of the value of using a structured approach to the benefit-risk assessment of medicines as well as enabling shared learnings between the authorities.

The identification of healthy carriers by newborn screening programmes raises questions about how and when the carrier results will be conveyed to child. There is currently a lack of information concerning how best to convey carrier information to children. This is a serious gap in the literature and practice. This study examined genetic counsellors' experiences of counselling children to explore how to support and inform children about their carrier result. Practising members of the United Kingdom (UK) Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors took part in semi-structured telephone interviews. Respondents described the communication process and identified barriers and facilitators of communication. Age, illness experience and maturity were variously discussed as facilitators; all of which are integral to psychological theories of children's understanding of illness. Adaptive family communication, school tuition and educational materials were also seen as influencing counselling efficacy. Relevant materials that children could keep were also seen as important to enhance children's autonomy. Yet, such resources were rare, constituting a barrier to communication. Counsellors reported communication was further impeded by maladaptive family communication and resistance from children to engaging in counselling. By exploring the facilitators and barriers inherent in communicating genetic information to children, guidance can be offered to counsellors, researchers and parents. This study indicates that some factors (eg illness experiences) previously identified by psychological theories may act in complex ways within this setting. Importantly, the factors identified as being most influential when communicating with children about genetics are amenable to change through interventions, support and training.