ArticleAnnals of family medicine2025
An Innovative Strategy for Collecting Family Health History: An Effectiveness-Implementation Trial in Primary Care Clinics.
Article in Annals of family medicine, 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to evaluate an innovative strategy to collect family history (FH) and explore patients' views of this strategy.
methodsWe conducted a matched-pair effectiveness-implementation trial in family practices affiliated with the University of Toronto Practice-Based Research Network (UTOPIAN). The intervention group included family physicians (FPs) from randomly selected practices using electronic health records (EHRs) and an e-mailing platform, and randomly selected patients aged 30-69 years (4/FP/week) seen in clinic over a 6-month period. The matched control group included FPs (1:1) and patients (up to 5:1) from the UTOPIAN database. The intervention included patient and FP education, an e-mailed patient invitation to complete an FH questionnaire, automatic FH EHR upload, FP notification of completed FH questionnaire, and links to clinical support tools. Intervention patients were e-mailed a postvisit follow-up questionnaire. The assessed outcome was new documentation of FH in the EHR using mixed effects logistic regression and descriptive statistics for patient feedback.
resultsFifteen FPs and 576 patients were recruited from 3 multidisciplinary team practices to the intervention group, matched to 15 FPs and 2,203 patients in the control group. Within 30 days of visit, a new FH was documented in the EHR for 93/576 (16.1%) of intervention patients compared with 5/2,203 (0.2%) control patients (adjusted OR = 94.2; 95% CI, 36.8-240.8). New cancer FH documentation was greater in the intervention group compared with the control group (7.8% vs 0.1%;
conclusionsThis study showed improved collection/documentation of FH. Contributors to success of the intervention included being patient completed and seamless EHR integration with a reminder. This FH strategy needs tailoring to different contexts.
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.