ArticleAnnals of family medicine
Development and validation of a family history screening questionnaire in Australian primary care.
Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Considering family trees as a useful tool in family medicine: a systematic review.Primary health care research & development · 2025Pooled it
- Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review.The European journal of general practice · 2022Pooled it
- Assessing family history of chronic disease in primary care: Prevalence, documentation, and appropriate screening.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2017Trial
- An Innovative Strategy for Collecting Family Health History: An Effectiveness-Implementation Trial in Primary Care Clinics.Annals of family medicine · 2025Article
- Study protocol: Exploring the use of Family Health Histories in the African American community to reduce health disparities in Flint, Michigan.Research square · 2024Article
- Evaluating an app for digital medical history taking in urgent care practices: study protocol of the cluster-randomized interventional trial 'DASI'.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Article
- Family history recording in UK general practice: the lIFeLONG study.Family practice · 2022Article
- The Patient Perceptions of Deprescribing (PPoD) Survey: Short-Form Development.Drugs & aging · 2020Article
- Is family history still underutilised? Exploring the views and experiences of primary care doctors in Malaysia.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Genetics in primary care: validating a tool to pre-symptomatically assess common disease risk using an Australian questionnaire on family history.Clinical and translational medicine · 2019Article
- What characterizes cancer family history collection tools? A critical literature review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Review
- Article
- Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Primary Care Setting in Turkey.Journal of community health · 2017Article
- Validation of an online questionnaire for identifying people at risk of familial and hereditary colorectal cancer.Familial cancer · 2015Article
- A qualitative evaluation of the psychosocial impact of family history screening in Australian primary care.Journal of genetic counseling · 2015Article
- Making Personalized Health Care Even More Personalized: Insights From Activities of the IOM Genomics Roundtable.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to validate a family history screening questionnaire in an Australian primary care population designed to identify people at increased risk for breast, ovarian, colorectal, and prostate cancer; melanoma; ischemic heart disease; and type 2 diabetes.
methodsWe prospectively validated the questionnaire in 6 general practices in Perth, Western Australia among 526 patients aged 20 to 50 years who responded to a single invitation from their general practice. They completed the 15-item questionnaire before a reference standard 3-generation pedigree was obtained by a genetic counselor blinded to the questionnaire responses. We calculated diagnostic performance statistics for the questionnaire using the pedigree as the reference standard.
resultsA combination of 9 questions had the following diagnostic performance, expressed as value (95% CI), to identify increased risk of any of the 7 conditions: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 84.6% (81.2%-88.1%), 95% sensitivity (92%-98%), and 54% specificity (48%-60%). The combination of questions to detect increased risk had sensitivity of 92% (84%-99%) and 96% (93%-99%) for the 5 and 6 conditions applicable only to men and women, respectively. The specificity was 63% (28%-52%) for men and 49% (42%-56%) for women. The positive predictive values were 67% (56%-78%) and 68% (63%-73%), and the false-positive rates were 9% (0.5%-17%) and 9% (3%-15%) for men and women, respectively.
conclusionsThis simple family history screening questionnaire shows good performance for identifying primary care patients at increased disease risk because of their family history. It could be used in primary care as part of a systematic approach to tailored disease prevention.
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.