BACKGROUND: Family health history (FHH) is an underutilized tool in primary care to identify and risk-stratify individuals with increased cancer risk. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the influence of patient education on quantity and quality of FHH entered into a primary care-based software program, and impact on the program's cancer risk management recommendations. DESIGN: Two primary care practices within a larger type II hybrid implementation-effectiveness controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: English speaking non-adopted patients with a well visit appointment December 2012-March 2013. INTERVENTIONS: One to two weeks prior to their well visit appointment, participants entered their FHH into the program. PARTICIPANTS were then provided educational materials describing key FHH components. They were instructed to use the interval to collect additional FHH information. Patients then returned for their scheduled appointment, and updated their FHH with any new information. MAIN MEASURES: Percentage per pedigree of relatives meeting individual quality criteria. Changes made after patient education and changes to recommendations for surveillance, chemoprevention or genetic counseling referral. KEY RESULTS: Post patient education, pedigrees exhibited a greater percentage (per pedigree) of: deceased relatives with age at death (84 vs. 81 % p = 0.02), deceased relatives with cause of death (91 vs. 87 % p = 0.02), relatives with a named health condition (45 vs. 42 % p = 0.002), and a greater percentage of relatives with high quality records (91 vs. 89 % p = 0.02). Of 43 participants with pedigree changes that could trigger changes in risk stratified prevention recommendations, 12 participants (28 %) received such changes. CONCLUSIONS: Patient education improves FHH collection and subsequent risk stratification utilized in providing actionable evidence-based care recommendations for cancer risk management.
BACKGROUND: Family health history (FHH) is an underutilized tool in primary care to identify and risk-stratify individuals with increased cancer risk. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the influence of patient education on quantity and quality of FHH entered into a primary care-based software program, and impact on the program's cancer risk management recommendations. DESIGN: Two primary care practices within a larger type II hybrid implementation-effectiveness controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: English speaking non-adopted patients with a well visit appointment December 2012-March 2013. INTERVENTIONS: One to two weeks prior to their well visit appointment, participants entered their FHH into the program. PARTICIPANTS were then provided educational materials describing key FHH components. They were instructed to use the interval to collect additional FHH information. Patients then returned for their scheduled appointment, and updated their FHH with any new information. MAIN MEASURES: Percentage per pedigree of relatives meeting individual quality criteria. Changes made after patient education and changes to recommendations for surveillance, chemoprevention or genetic counseling referral. KEY RESULTS: Post patient education, pedigrees exhibited a greater percentage (per pedigree) of: deceased relatives with age at death (84 vs. 81 % p = 0.02), deceased relatives with cause of death (91 vs. 87 % p = 0.02), relatives with a named health condition (45 vs. 42 % p = 0.002), and a greater percentage of relatives with high quality records (91 vs. 89 % p = 0.02). Of 43 participants with pedigree changes that could trigger changes in risk stratified prevention recommendations, 12 participants (28 %) received such changes. CONCLUSIONS:Patient education improves FHH collection and subsequent risk stratification utilized in providing actionable evidence-based care recommendations for cancer risk management.
Authors: Eugene C Rich; Wylie Burke; Caryl J Heaton; Susanne Haga; Linda Pinsky; M Priscilla Short; Louise Acheson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Philip Greenland; Joseph S Alpert; George A Beller; Emelia J Benjamin; Matthew J Budoff; Zahi A Fayad; Elyse Foster; Mark A Hlatky; John McB Hodgson; Frederick G Kushner; Michael S Lauer; Leslee J Shaw; Sidney C Smith; Allen J Taylor; William S Weintraub; Nanette K Wenger; Alice K Jacobs Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Carol A Christianson; Karen Potter Powell; Susan Estabrooks Hahn; Susan H Blanton; Jessica Bogacik; Vincent C Henrich Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: R Ryanne Wu; Lori A Orlando; Tiffany L Himmel; Adam H Buchanan; Karen P Powell; Elizabeth R Hauser; Astrid B Agbaje; Vincent C Henrich; Geoffrey S Ginsburg Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Lori A Orlando; R Ryanne Wu; Rachel A Myers; Joan Neuner; Catherine McCarty; Irina V Haller; Melissa Harry; Kimberly G Fulda; David Dimmock; Teji Rakhra-Burris; Adam Buchanan; Geoffrey S Ginsburg Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-11-07 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lori A Orlando; R Ryanne Wu; Rachel A Myers; Adam H Buchanan; Vincent C Henrich; Elizabeth R Hauser; Geoffrey S Ginsburg Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: R Ryanne Wu; Rachel A Myers; Catherine A McCarty; David Dimmock; Michael Farrell; Deanna Cross; Troy D Chinevere; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Lori A Orlando Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Sarina Madhavan; Emily Bullis; Rachel Myers; Chris J Zhou; Elise M Cai; Anu Sharma; Shreya Bhatia; Lori A Orlando; Susanne B Haga Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kristin Clift; Sarah Macklin-Mantia; Margaret Barnhorst; Lindsey Millares; Zacharay King; Anjali Agarwal; Richard John Presutti Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2022 Jan-Dec