ArticlePersonalized medicine2013
Improving learning about familial risks using a multicomponent approach: the GRACE program.
Article in Personalized medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability and feasibility of a virtual counselor (VICKY) to collect family health histories.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2015Trial
- Impact of family history assessment on communication with family members and health care providers: A report from the Family Healthware™ Impact Trial (FHITr).Preventive medicine · 2015Trial
- Protocol for a new family history of addiction density score to aid in the treatment of alcohol and substance use disorders.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2025Article
- Applying theory to characterize impediments to dissemination of community-facing family health history tools: a review of the literature.Journal of community genetics · 2020Review
- Designing and Evaluating a Digital Family Health History Tool for Spanish Speakers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo enhance learning (knowledge, attitudes and practices) about the importance of family health history (FHH) information and familial risks.
methodsA pre-post design with one group was employed in this study. Five learning sessions were conducted with a community-based sample (n = 75) recruited from five counties in Texas, USA. Each learning session included: a short online video; enactive instructions on how to use the online Surgeon General FHH tool; and a presentation on how to assess familial risks. Participants completed the pre-post knowledge, attitudes and practices questionnaires and the study's satisfaction survey, and participated in a short focus group interview.
resultsParticipants' average age was 48.1 ± 13.3 years. Over half of the participants (79%) were female, and 55% described themselves as non-Hispanic White. Our findings showed significant changes (p < 0.05) in participants' specific knowledge about factors that affect their familial risks. Similarly, significant changes (p < 0.05) in participants' attitudes toward familial risks assessment for common disease complications and confidence in controlling these risks have been documented. Participants' reported a high level of satisfaction in using online FHH tools, yet no significant change (p > 0.05) was detected in their reported practices regarding sharing FHH information with their providers or relatives. Focus group interviews revealed that participants were uncertain about providers' or relatives' reactions to sharing FHH information.
conclusionUsing different learning styles may have a significant impact on improving knowledge and attitudes about familial risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.