BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in developing systems to overcome barriers for acquiring and interpreting family health histories in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To examine the capacity of three different electronic portals to collect family history from patients and deposit valid data in an electronic health record (EHR). DESIGN: Pilot trial. PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTION: Patients were enrolled from four primary care practices and were asked to collect family health history before a physical exam using eithertelephone-based interactive voice response (IVR) technology, a secure Internet portal, or a waiting room laptop computer, with portal assigned by practice. Intervention practices were compared to a "usual care" practice, where there was no standard workflow to document family history (663 participants in the three intervention arms were compared to 296 participants from the control practice). MAIN MEASURES: New documentation of any family history in a coded EHR field within 30 days of the visit. Secondary outcomes included participation rates and validity. KEY RESULTS: Demographics varied by clinic. Documentation of new family history data was significantly higher, but modest, in each of the three intervention clinics (7.5 % for IVR clinic, 20.3 % for laptop clinic, and 23.1 % for patient portal clinic) versus the control clinic (1.7 %). Patient-entered data on common conditions in first degree relatives was confirmed as valid by a genetic counselor for the majority of cases (ranging from 64 to 82 % in the different arms). CONCLUSIONS: Within primary care practices, valid patient entered family health history data can be obtained electronically at higher rates than a standard of care that depends on provider-entered data. Further research is needed to determine how best to match different portals to individual patient preference, how the tools can best be integrated with provider workflow, and to assess how they impact the use of screening and prevention.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in developing systems to overcome barriers for acquiring and interpreting family health histories in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To examine the capacity of three different electronic portals to collect family history from patients and deposit valid data in an electronic health record (EHR). DESIGN: Pilot trial. PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTION: Patients were enrolled from four primary care practices and were asked to collect family health history before a physical exam using either telephone-based interactive voice response (IVR) technology, a secure Internet portal, or a waiting room laptop computer, with portal assigned by practice. Intervention practices were compared to a "usual care" practice, where there was no standard workflow to document family history (663 participants in the three intervention arms were compared to 296 participants from the control practice). MAIN MEASURES: New documentation of any family history in a coded EHR field within 30 days of the visit. Secondary outcomes included participation rates and validity. KEY RESULTS: Demographics varied by clinic. Documentation of new family history data was significantly higher, but modest, in each of the three intervention clinics (7.5 % for IVR clinic, 20.3 % for laptop clinic, and 23.1 % for patient portal clinic) versus the control clinic (1.7 %). Patient-entered data on common conditions in first degree relatives was confirmed as valid by a genetic counselor for the majority of cases (ranging from 64 to 82 % in the different arms). CONCLUSIONS: Within primary care practices, valid patient entered family health history data can be obtained electronically at higher rates than a standard of care that depends on provider-entered data. Further research is needed to determine how best to match different portals to individual patient preference, how the tools can best be integrated with provider workflow, and to assess how they impact the use of screening and prevention.
Authors: Kimberly S H Yarnall; Kathryn I Pollak; Truls Østbye; Katrina M Krause; J Lloyd Michener Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Louise S Acheson; Stephen J Zyzanski; Kurt C Stange; Amy Deptowicz; Georgia L Wiesner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan A Sabatino; Nancy Habarta; Roy C Baron; Ralph J Coates; Barbara K Rimer; Jon Kerner; Steven S Coughlin; Geetika P Kalra; Sajal Chattopadhyay Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Thomas H Payne; Sarah Corley; Theresa A Cullen; Tejal K Gandhi; Linda Harrington; Gilad J Kuperman; John E Mattison; David P McCallie; Clement J McDonald; Paul C Tang; William M Tierney; Charlotte Weaver; Charlene R Weir; Michael H Zaroukian Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Elizabeth S Chen; Elizabeth W Carter; Tamara J Winden; Indra Neil Sarkar; Yan Wang; Genevieve B Melton Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: June C Carroll; Denise Campbell-Scherer; Joanne A Permaul; Jesse Myers; Donna P Manca; Christopher Meaney; Rahim Moineddin; Eva Grunfeld Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Catharine Wang; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Deborah J Bowen; Howard Cabral; Michael R Winter; Tricia Norkunas Cunningham; Michelle Trevino-Talbot; Diana M Toledo; Dharma E Cortes; MaryAnn Campion; Timothy Bickmore Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2021-02-18