PURPOSE: We aimed to validate a family history screening questionnaire in an Australian primary care population designed to identify people at increased risk for breast, ovarian, colorectal, and prostate cancer; melanoma; ischemic heart disease; and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We prospectively validated the questionnaire in 6 general practices in Perth, Western Australia among 526 patients aged 20 to 50 years who responded to a single invitation from their general practice. They completed the 15-item questionnaire before a reference standard 3-generation pedigree was obtained by a genetic counselor blinded to the questionnaire responses. We calculated diagnostic performance statistics for the questionnaire using the pedigree as the reference standard. RESULTS: A combination of 9 questions had the following diagnostic performance, expressed as value (95% CI), to identify increased risk of any of the 7 conditions: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 84.6% (81.2%-88.1%), 95% sensitivity (92%-98%), and 54% specificity (48%-60%). The combination of questions to detect increased risk had sensitivity of 92% (84%-99%) and 96% (93%-99%) for the 5 and 6 conditions applicable only to men and women, respectively. The specificity was 63% (28%-52%) for men and 49% (42%-56%) for women. The positive predictive values were 67% (56%-78%) and 68% (63%-73%), and the false-positive rates were 9% (0.5%-17%) and 9% (3%-15%) for men and women, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This simple family history screening questionnaire shows good performance for identifying primary care patients at increased disease risk because of their family history. It could be used in primary care as part of a systematic approach to tailored disease prevention.
PURPOSE: We aimed to validate a family history screening questionnaire in an Australian primary care population designed to identify people at increased risk for breast, ovarian, colorectal, and prostate cancer; melanoma; ischemic heart disease; and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We prospectively validated the questionnaire in 6 general practices in Perth, Western Australia among 526 patients aged 20 to 50 years who responded to a single invitation from their general practice. They completed the 15-item questionnaire before a reference standard 3-generation pedigree was obtained by a genetic counselor blinded to the questionnaire responses. We calculated diagnostic performance statistics for the questionnaire using the pedigree as the reference standard. RESULTS: A combination of 9 questions had the following diagnostic performance, expressed as value (95% CI), to identify increased risk of any of the 7 conditions: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 84.6% (81.2%-88.1%), 95% sensitivity (92%-98%), and 54% specificity (48%-60%). The combination of questions to detect increased risk had sensitivity of 92% (84%-99%) and 96% (93%-99%) for the 5 and 6 conditions applicable only to men and women, respectively. The specificity was 63% (28%-52%) for men and 49% (42%-56%) for women. The positive predictive values were 67% (56%-78%) and 68% (63%-73%), and the false-positive rates were 9% (0.5%-17%) and 9% (3%-15%) for men and women, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This simple family history screening questionnaire shows good performance for identifying primary care patients at increased disease risk because of their family history. It could be used in primary care as part of a systematic approach to tailored disease prevention.
Authors: Nadeem Qureshi; Sarah Armstrong; Paula Dhiman; Paula Saukko; Joan Middlemass; Philip H Evans; Joe Kai Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Liesbeth Claassen; Lidewij Henneman; A Cecile J W Janssens; Miranda Wijdenes-Pijl; Nadeem Qureshi; Fiona M Walter; Paula W Yoon; Danielle R M Timmermans Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Suzanne M O'Neill; Wendy S Rubinstein; Catharine Wang; Paula W Yoon; Louise S Acheson; Nan Rothrock; Erin J Starzyk; Jennifer L Beaumont; James M Galliher; Mack T Ruffin Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Fiona M Walter; A Toby Prevost; Linda Birt; Nicola Grehan; Kathy Restarick; Helen C Morris; Stephen Sutton; Peter Rose; Sarah Downing; Jon D Emery Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 5.386
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: Sean P David; Samuel G Johnson; Adam C Berger; W Gregory Feero; Sharon F Terry; Larry A Green; Robert L Phillips; Geoffrey S Ginsburg Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Jennifer G Walker; Finlay Macrae; Ingrid Winship; Jasmeen Oberoi; Sibel Saya; Shakira Milton; Adrian Bickerstaffe; James G Dowty; Richard De Abreu Lourenço; Malcolm Clark; Louise Galloway; George Fishman; Fiona M Walter; Louisa Flander; Patty Chondros; Driss Ait Ouakrim; Marie Pirotta; Lyndal Trevena; Mark A Jenkins; Jon D Emery Journal: Trials Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 2.279