Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23397492›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2013

"You don't have to keep everything on paper": African American women's use of family health history tools.

Tess Thompson, Joann Seo, Julia Griffith, Melanie Baxter, Aimee James, Kimberly A Kaphingst

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Effects of racial and ethnic group and health literacy on responses to genomic risk information in a medically underserved population.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tess ThompsonHealth Communication Research Laboratory, Washington University in St. Louis, 700 Rosedale Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63112, USA, tessthompson@wustl.edu.
Joann Seo
Julia Griffith
Melanie Baxter
Aimee James
Kimberly A Kaphingst

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
Training / Career DevelopmentP50CA095815 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI LUKE, DOUGLAS A · 2003 to 2012
$20.4M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesKL2TR000450 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$8.8M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesTL1TR000449 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$2.5M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000450NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000449NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NCI NIH HHS P50 CA095815
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Little is known about African American women's collection of family health history (FHH) information and use of FHH tools. Most FHH research has investigated tools that use a biomedical paradigm, but other kinds of tools, such as those that include information about family social context, have been developed for use in diverse populations. Using mixed methods, we interviewed 32 African American women about behavioral steps to collecting FHH, family communication about health, and reactions to a biomedical FHH tool. Participants chose one of two FHH tools to take home. A follow-up call three weeks later assessed tool use. Many participants expressed support for writing down FHH information, but at baseline few had done so; most participants who had collected FHH information had done so verbally. Participants reacted positively to the biomedical FHH tool used during the interview, with many saying it allowed them to see patterns in their FHH. At follow-up, 67 % reported using their FHH tool, primarily to promote discussion among family members; only 32 % used the tool to write down FHH information. Although participants thought collecting FHH information was important and had positive reactions to both tools, the majority did not use the tools to write down information and instead collected FHH informally. These findings underline the importance of separating the components of FHH collection behaviors to analyze the steps used in FHH creation. Practitioners should consider additional methods of encouraging patients to create written FHHs in order to share the information with health care providers.

Identifiers

PMID23397492
PMCPMC3666835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.