PURPOSE: Collection of family cancer histories (FCHs) can identify individuals at risk for familial cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature on existing strategies whereby providers use information technology to assemble FCH. METHODS: A systematic search of online databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase) between 1980 and 2020 was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed through the chi-square test (ie, Cochrane Q test) and the inconsistency statistic (I2). A random-effects analysis was used to calculate the pooled proportions and means. RESULTS: The comprehensive search produced 4,005 publications. Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven information technology tools were evaluated. Eighteen out of 28 studies were electronic surveys administered before visits (18, 64.3%). Five studies administered tablet surveys in offices (5, 17.8%). Four studies collected electronic survey via kiosk before visits (4, 14.3%), and one study used animated virtual counselor during visits (1, 3.6%). Among the studies that use an FCH tool, the pooled estimate of the overall completion rate was 86% (CI, 72% to 96%), 84% (CI, 65% to 97%) for electronic surveys before visits, 89% (CI, 0.74 to 0.98) for tablet surveys, and 85% (CI, 0.66 to 0.98) for surveys via kiosk. Mean time required for completion was 31.0 minutes (CI, 26.1 to 35.9), and the pooled estimate of proportions of participants referred to genetic testing was 12% (CI, 4% to 23%). CONCLUSION: Our review found that electronic FCH collection can be completed successfully by patients in a time-efficient manner with high rates of satisfaction.
PURPOSE: Collection of family cancer histories (FCHs) can identify individuals at risk for familial cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature on existing strategies whereby providers use information technology to assemble FCH. METHODS: A systematic search of online databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase) between 1980 and 2020 was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed through the chi-square test (ie, Cochrane Q test) and the inconsistency statistic (I2). A random-effects analysis was used to calculate the pooled proportions and means. RESULTS: The comprehensive search produced 4,005 publications. Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven information technology tools were evaluated. Eighteen out of 28 studies were electronic surveys administered before visits (18, 64.3%). Five studies administered tablet surveys in offices (5, 17.8%). Four studies collected electronic survey via kiosk before visits (4, 14.3%), and one study used animated virtual counselor during visits (1, 3.6%). Among the studies that use an FCH tool, the pooled estimate of the overall completion rate was 86% (CI, 72% to 96%), 84% (CI, 65% to 97%) for electronic surveys before visits, 89% (CI, 0.74 to 0.98) for tablet surveys, and 85% (CI, 0.66 to 0.98) for surveys via kiosk. Mean time required for completion was 31.0 minutes (CI, 26.1 to 35.9), and the pooled estimate of proportions of participants referred to genetic testing was 12% (CI, 4% to 23%). CONCLUSION: Our review found that electronic FCH collection can be completed successfully by patients in a time-efficient manner with high rates of satisfaction.
Authors: Christopher P Childers; Kimberly K Childers; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; James Macinko Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Lori A Orlando; Adam H Buchanan; Susan E Hahn; Carol A Christianson; Karen P Powell; Celette Sugg Skinner; Blair Chesnut; Colette Blach; Barbara Due; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Vincent C Henrich Journal: N C Med J Date: 2013 Jul-Aug
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Heather J Baer; Louise I Schneider; Graham A Colditz; Hank Dart; Analisa Andry; Deborah H Williams; E John Orav; Jennifer S Haas; George Getty; Elizabeth Whittemore; David W Bates Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: F G J Kallenberg; C M Aalfs; F O The; C A Wientjes; A C Depla; M W Mundt; P M M Bossuyt; E Dekker Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Jordon B Ritchie; Caitlin G Allen; Heath Morrison; Michelle Nichols; Steven D Lauzon; Joshua D Schiffman; Chanita Hughes Halbert; Brandon M Welch Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 2.183