ArticleBMC primary care2025
Adaptation and pilot implementation of a hereditary cancer risk-assessment tool for primary care.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. 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.
- Streamlining Inherited Cancer Identification via an EMR-Integrated Risk Assessment Platform: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Primary care stakeholder perspectives on clinical implementation of patient-reported hereditary cancer risk-assessment.BMC primary care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFamily history-based risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer is guideline-recommended but clinical implementation remains limited. This is likely, in part, because it adds to the limited time primary care providers (PCPs) have to implement all guideline-recommended care.
methodsWe adapted Family History Screening 7 (or FHS7), designed for administration by a PCP, for self-report by primary care patients. We used the Framework for Reporting Adaptation and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME) to guide the modifications. We conducted a pilot feasibility study of hereditary prevention program using the adapted risk-assessment tool and report results from the first year of the program (February 2023-March 2024).
resultsFeedback from clinical stakeholders and our literature review revealed that, while hereditary cancer risk assessment was a priority for the primary care setting, implementation by PCPs was not feasible. We therefore adapted FHS7 for patient self-report by separating double-barreled items and eliminating jargon, resulting in nine items- six with binary (yes/no) and three with numeric responses. Outcomes from pilot implementation of the adapted FHS7 (n=4,355) showed high completion rate (77% completed all items), with greater completion via MyChart than in-person (87% vs. 13%), and higher non-response for the three items with numeric responses compared to the six with binary responses. Overall, positivity rate of the adapted FHS7 was 36%.
conclusionThis paper describes our team's process of adapting the FHS7 questionnaire to retain the core function (evaluating specific family history of cancer information) while adapting to fit the clinical context. Preliminary implementation data suggest high completion rate in the primary care setting.
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.