Trial reportBMC family practice2013
Patient and primary care provider experience using a family health history collection, risk stratification, and clinical decision support tool: a type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness trial.
Trial report in BMC family practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Guilford Genomic Medicine Initiative (GGMI)
The Electronic Medical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network Genomic Risk Assessment
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- The impact of eHealth use on general practice workload in the pre-COVID-19 era: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Genetically guided precision medicine clinical decision support tools: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Pooled it
- Leveraging Health Information Technology to Collect Family Cancer History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2021Pooled it
- Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Pooled it
- Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.Gynecologic oncology · 2023Trial
- Protocol for the "Implementation, adoption, and utility of family history in diverse care settings" study.Implementation science : IS · 2015Trial
- Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Colorectal Cancer Risk Prediction Tool in Primary Care to Increase Screening Uptake in Singapore: A Multi-Methods Pilot Study.Journal of primary care & community healthTrial
- An Innovative Strategy for Collecting Family Health History: An Effectiveness-Implementation Trial in Primary Care Clinics.Annals of family medicine · 2025Article
- A Systematic Approach to Screen, Identify, and Correct Malfunctioning Interruptive Alerts.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Mapping intellectual structure and research hotspots of cancer studies in primary health care: A machine-learning-based analysis.Medicine · 2025Article
- Family history and cancer risk study (FOREST): A clinical trial assessing electronic patient-directed family history input for identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Exploring key components and factors that influence the use of clinical decision- support tools for prescribing to older patients with kidney disease: the perspective of healthcare providers.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic family health history based risk assessment and impact on clinical disease prevention and surveillance activities.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Web-Based Tool (FH Family Share) to Increase Uptake of Cascade Testing for Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Development and Evaluation.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- Experience and Perceptions of a Family Health History Risk Assessment Tool among Multi-Ethnic Asian Breast Cancer Patients.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Clinical implementation of an oncology-specific family health history risk assessment tool.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2021Article
- Physicians' strategies for using family history data: having the data is not the same as using the data.JAMIA open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFamily health history (FHH) is the single strongest predictor of disease risk and yet is significantly underutilized in primary care. We developed a patient facing FHH collection tool, MeTree, that uses risk stratification to generate clinical decision support for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, hereditary cancer syndromes, and thrombosis. Here we present data on the experience of patients and providers after integration of MeTree into 2 primary care practices.
methodsThis was a Type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness study in 3 community-based primary care clinics in Greensboro, NC. All non-adopted adult English speaking patients with upcoming routine appointments were invited. Patients were recruited from December 2009 to the present and followed for one year. Ease of integration of MeTree into clinical practice at the two intervention clinics was evaluated through patient surveys after their appointment and at 3 months post-visit, and physician surveys 3 months after tool integration.
resultsTotal enrollment =1,184. Average time to complete MeTree = 27 minutes. Patients found MeTree: easy to use (93%), easy to understand (97%), useful (98%), raised awareness of disease risk (85%), and changed how they think about their health (86%). Of the 26% (N = 311) asking for assistance to complete the tool, age (65 sd 9.4 vs. 57 sd 11.8, p-value < 0.00) and large pedigree size (24.4 sd 9.81 vs. 22.2 sd 8.30, p-value < 0.00) were the only significant factors; 77% of those requiring assistance were over the age of 60. Providers (N = 14) found MeTree: improved their practice (86%), improved their understanding of FHH (64%), made practice easier (79%), and worthy of recommending to their peers (93%).
conclusionsOur study shows that MeTree has broad acceptance and support from both patients and providers and can be implemented without disruption to workflow.
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.