Catharine Wang1, Ananda Sen2, Melissa Plegue3, Mack T Ruffin4, Suzanne M O'Neill5, Wendy S Rubinstein6, Louise S Acheson7. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, USA. Electronic address: clwang@bu.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA; Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. 3. Center for Statistical Consultation and Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA; Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. 4. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, USA. 6. National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA. 7. Departments of Family Medicine & Community Health and Reproductive Biology, Case Western Reserve University and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the impact of Family Healthware™ on communication behaviors; specifically, communication with family members and health care providers about family health history. METHODS: A total of 3786 participants were enrolled in the Family Healthware™ Impact Trial (FHITr) in the United States from 2005-7. The trial employed a two-arm cluster-randomized design, with primary care practices serving as the unit of randomization. Using generalized estimating equations (GEE), analyses focused on communication behaviors at 6month follow-up, adjusting for age, site and practice clustering. RESULTS: A significant interaction was observed between study arm and baseline communication status for the family communication outcomes (p's<.01), indicating that intervention had effects of different magnitude between those already communicating at baseline and those who were not. Among participants who were not communicating at baseline, intervention participants had higher odds of communicating with family members about family history risk (OR=1.24, p=0.042) and actively collecting family history information at follow-up (OR=2.67, p=0.026). Family Healthware™ did not have a significant effect on family communication among those already communicating at baseline, or on provider communication, regardless of baseline communication status. Greater communication was observed among those at increased familial risk for a greater number of diseases. CONCLUSION: Family Healthware™ prompted more communication about family history with family members, among those who were not previously communicating. Efforts are needed to identify approaches to encourage greater sharing of family history information, particularly with health care providers.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the impact of Family Healthware™ on communication behaviors; specifically, communication with family members and health care providers about family health history. METHODS: A total of 3786 participants were enrolled in the Family Healthware™ Impact Trial (FHITr) in the United States from 2005-7. The trial employed a two-arm cluster-randomized design, with primary care practices serving as the unit of randomization. Using generalized estimating equations (GEE), analyses focused on communication behaviors at 6month follow-up, adjusting for age, site and practice clustering. RESULTS: A significant interaction was observed between study arm and baseline communication status for the family communication outcomes (p's<.01), indicating that intervention had effects of different magnitude between those already communicating at baseline and those who were not. Among participants who were not communicating at baseline, intervention participants had higher odds of communicating with family members about family history risk (OR=1.24, p=0.042) and actively collecting family history information at follow-up (OR=2.67, p=0.026). Family Healthware™ did not have a significant effect on family communication among those already communicating at baseline, or on provider communication, regardless of baseline communication status. Greater communication was observed among those at increased familial risk for a greater number of diseases. CONCLUSION: Family Healthware™ prompted more communication about family history with family members, among those who were not previously communicating. Efforts are needed to identify approaches to encourage greater sharing of family history information, particularly with health care providers.
Authors: Janice S Dorman; Rodolfo Valdez; Tiebin Liu; Catharine Wang; Wendy S Rubinstein; Suzanne M O'Neill; Louise S Acheson; Mack T Ruffin; Muin J Khoury Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Wendy S Rubinstein; Louise S Acheson; Suzanne M O'Neill; Mack T Ruffin; Catharine Wang; Jennifer L Beaumont; Nan Rothrock Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Marie T Kumerow; Juan L Rodriguez; Shifan Dai; Katherine Kolor; Melissa Rotunno; Lucy A Peipins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Hendrik Dirk de Heer; Kayla de la Haye; Kaley Skapinsky; Andrea F Goergen; Anna V Wilkinson; Laura M Koehly Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2016-07-09
Authors: Maria Cerda Diez; Dharma E Cortés; Michelle Trevino-Talbot; Candice Bangham; Michael R Winter; Howard Cabral; Tricia Norkunas Cunningham; Diana M Toledo; Deborah J Bowen; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Timothy Bickmore; Catharine Wang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-07 Impact factor: 3.390