R Ryanne Wu1,2, Rachel A Myers1, Adam H Buchanan3, David Dimmock4, Kimberly G Fulda5, Irina V Haller6, Susanne B Haga1, Melissa L Harry6, Catherine McCarty7, Joan Neuner8,9, Teji Rakhra-Burris1, Nina Sperber1,10,11, Corrine I Voils12,13, Geoffrey S Ginsburg1, Lori A Orlando1. 1. Center for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States. 2. Durham VA Cooperative Studies Program Epidemiology Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States. 3. Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania, United States. 4. Rady Children's Institute for Genomic Medicine, San Diego, California, United States. 5. The North Texas Primary Care Practice-Based Research Network and Family Medicine, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas, United States. 6. Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Essentia, Duluth, Minnesota, United States. 7. University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth Campus, Duluth, Minnesota, United States. 8. Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States. 9. Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States. 10. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States. 11. Durham VA Health Services & Development Service, Durham, North Carolina, United States. 12. William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin, United States. 13. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Investigate sociodemographic differences in the use of a patient-facing family health history (FHH)-based risk assessment platform. METHODS: In this large multisite trial with a diverse patient population, we evaluated the relationship between sociodemographic factors and FHH health risk assessment uptake using an information technology (IT) platform. The entire study was administered online, including consent, baseline survey, and risk assessment completion. We used multivariate logistic regression to model effect of sociodemographic factors on study progression. Quality of FHH data entered as defined as relatives: (1) with age of onset reported on relevant conditions; (2) if deceased, with cause of death and (3) age of death reported; and (4) percentage of relatives with medical history marked as unknown was analyzed using grouped logistic fixed effect regression. RESULTS: A total of 2,514 participants consented with a mean age of 57 and 10.4% minority. Multivariate modeling showed that progression through study stages was more likely for younger (p-value = 0.005), more educated (p-value = 0.004), non-Asian (p-value = 0.009), and female (p-value = 0.005) participants. Those with lower health literacy or information-seeking confidence were also less likely to complete the study. Most significant drop-out occurred during the risk assessment completion phase. Overall, quality of FHH data entered was high with condition's age of onset reported 87.85%, relative's cause of death 85.55% and age of death 93.76%, and relative's medical history marked as unknown 19.75% of the time. CONCLUSION: A demographically diverse population was able to complete an IT-based risk assessment but there were differences in attrition by sociodemographic factors. More attention should be given to ensure end-user functionality of health IT and leverage electronic medical records to lessen patient burden. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
OBJECTIVE: Investigate sociodemographic differences in the use of a patient-facing family health history (FHH)-based risk assessment platform. METHODS: In this large multisite trial with a diverse patient population, we evaluated the relationship between sociodemographic factors and FHH health risk assessment uptake using an information technology (IT) platform. The entire study was administered online, including consent, baseline survey, and risk assessment completion. We used multivariate logistic regression to model effect of sociodemographic factors on study progression. Quality of FHH data entered as defined as relatives: (1) with age of onset reported on relevant conditions; (2) if deceased, with cause of death and (3) age of death reported; and (4) percentage of relatives with medical history marked as unknown was analyzed using grouped logistic fixed effect regression. RESULTS: A total of 2,514 participants consented with a mean age of 57 and 10.4% minority. Multivariate modeling showed that progression through study stages was more likely for younger (p-value = 0.005), more educated (p-value = 0.004), non-Asian (p-value = 0.009), and female (p-value = 0.005) participants. Those with lower health literacy or information-seeking confidence were also less likely to complete the study. Most significant drop-out occurred during the risk assessment completion phase. Overall, quality of FHH data entered was high with condition's age of onset reported 87.85%, relative's cause of death 85.55% and age of death 93.76%, and relative's medical history marked as unknown 19.75% of the time. CONCLUSION: A demographically diverse population was able to complete an IT-based risk assessment but there were differences in attrition by sociodemographic factors. More attention should be given to ensure end-user functionality of health IT and leverage electronic medical records to lessen patient burden. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Lori A Orlando; R Ryanne Wu; Chris Beadles; Tiffany Himmel; Adam H Buchanan; Karen P Powell; Elizabeth R Hauser; Vincent C Henrich; Geoffrey S Ginsburg Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 3.908
Authors: Laura M Koehly; June A Peters; Regina Kenen; Lindsey M Hoskins; Anne L Ersig; Natalia R Kuhn; Jennifer T Loud; Mark H Greene Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jeremy L Warner; Matthew J Rioth; Kenneth D Mandl; Joshua C Mandel; David A Kreda; Isaac S Kohane; Daniel Carbone; Ross Oreto; Lucy Wang; Shilin Zhu; Heming Yao; Gil Alterovitz Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-03-27 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Lindsay S Elliott; John C Henderson; Moni B Neradilek; Nicolas A Moyer; Kristine C Ashcraft; Ranjit K Thirumaran Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: R Ryanne Wu; Rachel A Myers; Nina Sperber; Corrine I Voils; Joan Neuner; Catherine A McCarty; Irina V Haller; Melissa Harry; Kimberly G Fulda; Deanna Cross; David Dimmock; Teji Rakhra-Burris; Adam H Buchanan; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Lori A Orlando Journal: Genet Med Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Marianna V Papageorge; Benjamin J Resio; Andres F Monsalve; Maureen Canavan; Ranjan Pathak; Vincent J Mase; Andrew P Dhanasopon; Jessica R Hoag; Justin D Blasberg; Daniel J Boffa Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2020-07-07
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: 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