Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42058408›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026

Routine family history inquiry among family physicians: associations with perceived clinical usefulness and barriers: a cross-sectional study.

Melike Karabulut Özer, Dilara Canbay Özdemir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Melike Karabulut ÖzerDepartment of Family Medicine, Ordu University Faculty of Medicine, Ordu, Türkiye.
Dilara Canbay ÖzdemirDepartment of Family Medicine, Ordu University Faculty of Medicine, Ordu, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Family history is a core component of individualized risk assessment in primary care, particularly for cardiovascular disease, hypercholesterolemia, and cancer; however, it is not always routinely obtained in everyday practice. This study aimed to describe family physicians' self-reported family history inquiry behavior and to examine its associations with perceived clinical usefulness, perceived barriers, and inquiry into selected heritable conditions. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional, self-administered online survey included 257 family physicians practicing in primary care in Türkiye. The questionnaire assessed the frequency of family history inquiry, perceived clinical usefulness, perceived barriers, and the extent of inquiry into selected heritable conditions. Two author-developed Likert-type scales were used as exploratory composite measures. Non-parametric tests, chi-square analyses, Spearman's correlation analysis, and univariable binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: Routine family history inquiry was self-reported as being performed frequently by 55.3% of participants and occasionally by 41.2%. Higher perceived clinical usefulness scores were associated with more frequent self-reported inquiry. Perceived clinical usefulness and perceived barriers showed a moderate positive correlation (Spearman's rho = 0.341, Conclusion: In this cross-sectional survey of family physicians, more frequent self-reported routine family history inquiry was associated with a higher perceived clinical usefulness of family history information. These findings indicate self-reported behavior and perceived utility and should not be interpreted as evidence of causal effects or measured effects on clinical decision-making outcomes.

Indexed as

clinical usefulnessfamily historyfamily physiciansperceived barriersprimary carerisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID42058408
PMCPMC13120918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.