ArticleJournal of community genetics2025
Perceptions of family health history in an East Baltimore community.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Knowledge and discussion of family health history (FHH) can allow patients, families, and communities to proactively monitor their health and communicate with providers to identify genetic risk factors and inform clinical decision-making. Under-resourced communities may face barriers in collecting, sharing, and using FHH due to competingpriorities, health literacy, and medical mistrust. We characterized community opinions about FHH in a public Baltimore market.A paper survey was administered during biweekly health fairs at the Northeast Market. The survey assessed participants’ practices of discussing and collecting FHH, knowledge of genetic testing, perception of FHH, and demographics.One hundred and one surveys were collected. 76% of respondents discussed FHH while only 56% collected FHH (p <.05). Logistic regression found that female gender significantly predicts FHH collection (OR = 2.77, 95% CI [1.15, 6.84]). Additionally, higher income was significantly correlated with discussing (OR = 1.59, 95% CI [1.14, 2.37]), collecting (OR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.01, 1.68]), and valuing transmission of FHH from older to younger people (OR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.22, 2.51]). Participants were found to favor obtaining FHH knowledge through intergenerational exchange compared to medical staff or schoolteachers.These findings indicate that promoting FHH warrants equitable strategies to reach all persons across gender, age, and socioeconomics. Having local advocates trained in the significance of FHH (e.g. community health workers) and supporting intergenerational approaches (e.g. older women with younger relatives) may be a consideration to reach such populations. More insight is needed to gain a comprehensive understanding of how FHH is valued by certain demographics and then begin to foster equitable strategies to educate and inform diverse populations on FHH.
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.