ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2015
A qualitative evaluation of the psychosocial impact of family history screening in Australian primary care.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors influencing the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Whilst the family history is perceived as a routine part of the medical family history it is not used in a systematic way to tailor disease prevention in primary care. Family history questionnaires (FHQs) may have an important role in primary care as a screening tool to support tailored disease prevention. The potential harms and benefits of family history screening in primary care require investigation before routine adoption. This study aimed: first to explore the experience and impact of family history collection via a novel family history questionnaire and subsequent familial risk assessment, and secondly, to assess the acceptability and feasibility of using the questionnaire in Australian primary care. Twenty-eight semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with patients already enrolled in a family history screening study through their family physician. Qualitative constant comparative analysis was undertaken of transcript data. Common themes included the way in which the family unit, individual stage of life and a number of external triggers interact and contribute to how an individual comes to terms with familial disease risk. Unique findings emerged relating to the Australian perspective of participants. Living in Australia created a barrier to effective communication amongst family members about family health, and family history collection. In addition to the vast geographical distance both within Australia, and between Australia and other countries, there was an additional sense of isolation described within an historical context. The family history screening questionnaire was considered user-friendly and a worthwhile approach to supporting disease prevention in primary care, although some participants did not retain an accurate understanding of their familial cancer risk. In conclusion, a person's response to family history screening is reliant on a complex interplay of family, personal and external factors, which in turn are driven by their stage of life. The impact of immigration and geographic isolation from family members may further complicate a person's response to undertaking family history screening.
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.