ArticleBMC family practice2014
Quality of family history collection with use of a patient facing family history assessment tool.
Article in BMC family practice, 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 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.Gynecologic oncology · 2023Trial
- A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Trial
- Protocol for the "Implementation, adoption, and utility of family history in diverse care settings" study.Implementation science : IS · 2015Trial
- Genomic Architecture and Cascade Screening Gaps in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Real-World Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of Genetic Risk Factors on Coronary Heart Disease Risk Across the Age Spectrum in Three Major Race/Ethnicity Groups in the United States.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Family Health History Completeness in Prenatal Genetic Counseling: An Exploratory Study at a Single University Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Feasibility of an electronic patient-facing cancer family history tool in medically underserved populations.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
- Patients Managing Their Medical Data in Personal Electronic Health Records: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Literacy-adapted, electronic family history assessment for genetics referral in primary care: patient user insights from qualitative interviews.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Adaptation and early implementation of the PREdiction model for gene mutations (PREMMFamilial cancer · 2022Article
- Landscape of germline cancer predisposition mutations testing and management in pediatrics: Implications for research and clinical care.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
- Clinical implementation of an oncology-specific family health history risk assessment tool.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2021Article
- Family history assessment significantly enhances delivery of precision medicine in the genomics era.Genome 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
- Physicians' strategies for using family history data: having the data is not the same as using the data.JAMIA open · 2020Article
- Evaluation of family health history collection methods impact on data and risk assessment outcomes.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Article
- Population prevalence of individuals meeting criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer testing.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Family health history: underused for actionable risk assessment.Lancet (London, England) · 2019Review
- Effect of Sociodemographic Factors on Uptake of a Patient-Facing Information Technology Family Health History Risk Assessment Platform.Applied clinical informatics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies have shown that the quality of family health history (FHH) collection in primary care is inadequate to assess disease risk. To use FHH for risk assessment, collected data must have adequate detail. To address this issue, we developed a patient facing FHH assessment tool, MeTree. In this paper we report the content and quality of the FHH collected using MeTree.
methods
designA hybrid implementation-effectiveness study. Patients were recruited from 2009 to 2012.
settingTwo community primary care clinics in Greensboro, NC.
participantsAll non-adopted adult English speaking patients with upcoming appointments were invited to participate.
interventionEducation about and collection of FHH with entry into MeTree. MEASURES: We report the proportion of pedigrees that were high-quality. High-quality pedigrees are defined as having all the following criteria: (1) three generations of relatives, (2) relatives' lineage, (3) relatives' gender, (4) an up-to-date FHH, (5) pertinent negatives noted, (6) age of disease onset in affected relatives, and for deceased relatives, (7) the age and (8) cause of death (Prim Care31:479-495, 2004.).
resultsEnrollment: 1,184. Participant demographics: age range 18-92 (mean 58.8, SD 11.79), 56% male, and 75% white. The median pedigree size was 21 (range 8-71) and the FHH entered into MeTree resulted in a database of 27,406 individuals. FHHs collected by MeTree were found to be high quality in 99.8% (N = 1,182/1,184) as compared to <4% at baseline. An average of 1.9 relatives per pedigree (range 0-50, SD 4.14) had no data reported. For pedigrees where at least one relative has no data (N = 497/1,184), 4.97 relatives per pedigree (range 1-50, SD 5.44) had no data. Talking with family members before using MeTree significantly decreased the proportion of relatives with no data reported (4.98% if you talked to your relative vs. 10.85% if you did not, p-value < 0.001.).
conclusionUsing MeTree improves the quantity and quality of the FHH data that is collected and talking with relatives prior to the collection of FHH significantly improves the quantity and quality of the data provided. This allows more patients to be accurately risk stratified and offered appropriate preventive care guided by their risk level. TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01372553.
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.