ArticleFamilial cancer2014
Providing patient education: impact on quantity and quality of family health history collection.
Article in Familial cancer, 2014. 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 13 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.
Guilford Genomic Medicine Initiative (GGMI)
The Electronic Medical Records and GEnomics (eMERGE) Network Genomic Risk Assessment
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocol for the "Implementation, adoption, and utility of family history in diverse care settings" study.Implementation science : IS · 2015Trial
- Family Health History Completeness in Prenatal Genetic Counseling: An Exploratory Study at a Single University Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing: 30 Years of Impact on Cancer Care.Delaware journal of public health · 2024Article
- Family history recording in UK general practice: the lIFeLONG study.Family practice · 2022Article
- Experience and Perceptions of a Family Health History Risk Assessment Tool among Multi-Ethnic Asian Breast Cancer Patients.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- At the intersection of precision medicine and population health: an implementation-effectiveness study of family health history based systematic risk assessment in primary care.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Evaluation of family health history collection methods impact on data and risk assessment outcomes.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Article
- Cancer Genetic Counseling-Current Practice and Future Challenges.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020Review
- Applying theory to characterize impediments to dissemination of community-facing family health history tools: a review of the literature.Journal of community genetics · 2020Review
- Family health history: underused for actionable risk assessment.Lancet (London, England) · 2019Review
- Article
- Clinical utility of a Web-enabled risk-assessment and clinical decision support program.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016Article
- Comparison of a Focused Family Cancer History Questionnaire to Family History Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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 an underutilized tool in primary care to identify and risk-stratify individuals with increased cancer risk.
objectiveEvaluate the influence of patient education on quantity and quality of FHH entered into a primary care-based software program, and impact on the program's cancer risk management recommendations.
designTwo primary care practices within a larger type II hybrid implementation-effectiveness controlled clinical trial.
participantsEnglish speaking non-adopted patients with a well visit appointment December 2012-March 2013.
interventionsOne to two weeks prior to their well visit appointment, participants entered their FHH into the program. PARTICIPANTS were then provided educational materials describing key FHH components. They were instructed to use the interval to collect additional FHH information. Patients then returned for their scheduled appointment, and updated their FHH with any new information. MAIN MEASURES: Percentage per pedigree of relatives meeting individual quality criteria. Changes made after patient education and changes to recommendations for surveillance, chemoprevention or genetic counseling referral. KEY
resultsPost patient education, pedigrees exhibited a greater percentage (per pedigree) of: deceased relatives with age at death (84 vs. 81 % p = 0.02), deceased relatives with cause of death (91 vs. 87 % p = 0.02), relatives with a named health condition (45 vs. 42 % p = 0.002), and a greater percentage of relatives with high quality records (91 vs. 89 % p = 0.02). Of 43 participants with pedigree changes that could trigger changes in risk stratified prevention recommendations, 12 participants (28 %) received such changes.
conclusionsPatient education improves FHH collection and subsequent risk stratification utilized in providing actionable evidence-based care recommendations for cancer risk management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24515581What 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.