Catharine Wang1, Timothy Bickmore2, Deborah J Bowen3, Tricia Norkunas1, MaryAnn Campion4, Howard Cabral5, Michael Winter6, Michael Paasche-Orlow7. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Northeastern University College of Computer and Information Science, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Department of Bioethics & Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 4. Master of Science Program in Genetic Counseling, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Data Coordinating Center, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To overcome literacy-related barriers in the collection of electronic family health histories, we developed an animated Virtual Counselor for Knowing your Family History, or VICKY. This study examined the acceptability and accuracy of using VICKY to collect family histories from underserved patients as compared with My Family Health Portrait (MFHP). METHODS: Participants were recruited from a patient registry at a safety net hospital and randomized to use either VICKY or MFHP. Accuracy was determined by comparing tool-collected histories with those obtained by a genetic counselor. RESULTS: A total of 70 participants completed this study. Participants rated VICKY as easy to use (91%) and easy to follow (92%), would recommend VICKY to others (83%), and were highly satisfied (77%). VICKY identified 86% of first-degree relatives and 42% of second-degree relatives; combined accuracy was 55%. As compared with MFHP, VICKY identified a greater number of health conditions overall (49% with VICKY vs. 31% with MFHP; incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.59; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.13-2.25; P = 0.008), in particular, hypertension (47 vs. 15%; IRR: 3.18; 95% CI: 1.66-6.10; P = 0.001) and type 2 diabetes (54 vs. 22%; IRR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.33-4.60; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that technological support for documenting family history risks can be highly accepted, feasible, and effective.
PURPOSE: To overcome literacy-related barriers in the collection of electronic family health histories, we developed an animated Virtual Counselor for Knowing your Family History, or VICKY. This study examined the acceptability and accuracy of using VICKY to collect family histories from underserved patients as compared with My Family Health Portrait (MFHP). METHODS: Participants were recruited from a patient registry at a safety net hospital and randomized to use either VICKY or MFHP. Accuracy was determined by comparing tool-collected histories with those obtained by a genetic counselor. RESULTS: A total of 70 participants completed this study. Participants rated VICKY as easy to use (91%) and easy to follow (92%), would recommend VICKY to others (83%), and were highly satisfied (77%). VICKY identified 86% of first-degree relatives and 42% of second-degree relatives; combined accuracy was 55%. As compared with MFHP, VICKY identified a greater number of health conditions overall (49% with VICKY vs. 31% with MFHP; incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.59; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.13-2.25; P = 0.008), in particular, hypertension (47 vs. 15%; IRR: 3.18; 95% CI: 1.66-6.10; P = 0.001) and type 2 diabetes (54 vs. 22%; IRR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.33-4.60; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that technological support for documenting family history risks can be highly accepted, feasible, and effective.
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: W F Cohn; M E Ropka; S L Pelletier; J R Barrett; M B Kinzie; M B Harrison; Z Liu; S Miesfeldt; A L Tucker; B B Worrall; J Gibson; I M Mullins; K S Elward; J Franko; T M Guterbock; W A Knaus Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2010-04-29 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Ahsan M Arozullah; Paul R Yarnold; Charles L Bennett; Robert C Soltysik; Michael S Wolf; Rosario M Ferreira; Shoou-Yih D Lee; Stacey Costello; Adil Shakir; Caroline Denwood; Fred B Bryant; Terry Davis Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Alice Watson; Timothy Bickmore; Abby Cange; Ambar Kulshreshtha; Joseph Kvedar Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: R Ryanne Wu; Rachel A Myers; Adam H Buchanan; David Dimmock; Kimberly G Fulda; Irina V Haller; Susanne B Haga; Melissa L Harry; Catherine McCarty; Joan Neuner; Teji Rakhra-Burris; Nina Sperber; Corrine I Voils; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Lori A Orlando Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Jared W Magnani; Danielle Ferry; Gretchen Swabe; Deborah Martin; Xirun Chen; Maria M Brooks; Samar R El Khoudary Journal: Am Heart J Plus Date: 2021-03
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
Authors: Leslie Riddle; Laura M Amendola; Marian J Gilmore; Claudia Guerra; Barbara Biesecker; Tia L Kauffman; Katherine Anderson; Alan F Rope; Michael C Leo; Mikaella Caruncho; Gail P Jarvik; Benjamin Wilfond; Katrina A B Goddard; Galen Joseph Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2020-12-23
Authors: Emily N Guhl; Courtney L Schlusser; Lori E Henault; Timothy W Bickmore; Everlyne Kimani; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Jared W Magnani Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Erika A Waters; Jennifer M Taber; Amy McQueen; Ashley J Housten; Jamie L Studts; Laura D Scherer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 4.254