ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2018
Investigation of the Use of a Family Health History Application in Genetic Counseling.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What characterizes cancer family history collection tools? A critical literature review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Review
- Introduction to the "Technology in Practice" Special Issue.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The paper-based pedigree is the current standard for family health history (FHH) documentation in genetic counseling. Several tools for electronic capture of family health data have been developed to improve re-use and accessibility, data quality and standardization, ease of updating, and integration with electronic medical records. One such tool, the tablet-based Proband application, provides a flexible approach to data capture in dynamic and diverse clinical settings. This study compared Proband FHH collection to paper-based methods and investigated the usability of Proband in a clinical setting. After one use by 23 genetic counselors and students, Proband had 91% accuracy with a FHH audio scenario, which was significantly less (p < 0.001) than paper's 96% accuracy. These differences were attributed to incorrect or missing ages of grandparents (p < 0.001) and great-aunts/uncles (p = 0.012) and missing documentation of consanguinity (p < 0.001). Possible explanations for these differences include greater experience with paper FHH documentation and pre-populated prompts for consanguinity on the paper template used. Proband's perceived usability increased with use, with individual System Usability Scores increasing between first and last use (p = 0.033). We conclude that tools for dynamic, provider-driven FHH documentation such as Proband show promise for improving risk assessment accuracy and quality patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29274073What 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.