Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24728773›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2014

Psychological impact of family history risk assessment in primary care: a mixed methods study.

Linda Birt, Jon D Emery, A Toby Prevost, Stephen Sutton, Fiona M Walter

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Linda BirtThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK, Lb484@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Jon D EmeryThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK, General Practice and Primary Care Academic Centre, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia, School of Primary Aboriginal and Rural Health Care, University of Western Australia, Crawley WA 6009, Australia.
A Toby PrevostThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK, King's College London, Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, Capital House, London, UK and.
Stephen SuttonBehavioural Science Group, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR.
Fiona M WalterThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK, General Practice and Primary Care Academic Centre, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia, School of Primary Aboriginal and Rural Health Care, University of Western Australia, Crawley WA 6009, Australia.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Western Australia · AU

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0807-13141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRoutine family history risk assessment for chronic diseases could enable primary care practitioners to efficiently identify at-risk patients and promote preventive management strategies.

objectivesTo investigate patients' understanding and responses to family history risk assessment in primary care.

methodA mixed methods study set in 10 Eastern England general practices. Participants in a family history questionnaire validation study were triaged into population or increased risk for four chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer). Questionnaires completed immediately prior to the family history consultation (baseline) and 4 weeks later (follow-up) assessed the psychological impact, including State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. Semi-structured interviews explored the meaning participants gave to their personal familial disease risk.

resultsFour hundred and fifty-three participants completed both baseline and follow-up questionnaires and 30 were interviewed. At follow-up, there was no increase in anxiety among either group, or differences between the groups [difference in mean change 0.02, 95% confidence interval -2.04, 2.08, P = 0.98]. There were no significant changes over time in self-rated health in either group. At follow-up, participants at increased risk (n = 153) were more likely to have recent changes to behaviour and they had stronger intentions to make changes to diet (P = 0.001), physical activity (P = 0.006) and to seek further information in the future than those at population risk (n = 300; P < 0.001). Using qualitative analysis, five themes were developed representing ways in which participants gave meaning to familial disease risk ('Being reassured', 'Controlling risk', 'Dealing with it later', 'Beyond my control', 'Disbelieving the risk'). The meanings they attributed to increased risk appeared to shape their intention to undertake behaviour change.

conclusionRoutine assessment for familial risk of chronic diseases may be undertaken in primary care without causing anxiety or reducing self-rated health. Patient responses to family history risk assessment may inform promotion of preventive management strategies.

Indexed as

Medical History TakingPrimary Health CareRisk AssessmentStress, PsychologicalAdultChronic DiseaseEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesCancercardiovascular diseasediabetesfamily healthprimary health carerisk assessment.

Identifiers

PMID24728773
PMCPMC5926455
OpenAlexW2014253471

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.