Leland E Hull1, Pradeep Natarajan2. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: lhull@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Cardiovascular Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Program in Medical and Population Genetics and Cardiovascular Disease Initiative, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA. Electronic address: pnatarajan@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Disparities in access to genetics services are well-documented. Family health history is routinely used to determine whether patients should be screened for heritable conditions. We sought to explore variation in levels of self-rated family health history knowledge as a possible contributer to this disparity. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of survey data from the All of Us Research Program. We compared the characteristics of participants who reported "None," "Some", and "A lot" of family health history knowledge using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Self-rated family health history data were available for 116,799 participants. A minority of survey participants (37%) endorsed "A lot" of knowledge about their family health history (n = 43,661). Most participants (60%) endorsed "Some" family health history knowledge (n = 69,914) and 3% (n = 3224) endorsed "None." In adjusted analyses, those who indicated "Some" family health history knowledge or "None" were more likely to be assigned male sex at birth, identify as possible gender and sexual minorities, have a self-reported race other than White, have a lower household annual income (<$25,000), or report lower educational attainment (<high school graduate) than those who endorsed "A lot" of knowledge and the reference groups. CONCLUSION: Family health history knowledge may be limited, especially among traditionally underserved populations.
PURPOSE: Disparities in access to genetics services are well-documented. Family health history is routinely used to determine whether patients should be screened for heritable conditions. We sought to explore variation in levels of self-rated family health history knowledge as a possible contributer to this disparity. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of survey data from the All of Us Research Program. We compared the characteristics of participants who reported "None," "Some", and "A lot" of family health history knowledge using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Self-rated family health history data were available for 116,799 participants. A minority of survey participants (37%) endorsed "A lot" of knowledge about their family health history (n = 43,661). Most participants (60%) endorsed "Some" family health history knowledge (n = 69,914) and 3% (n = 3224) endorsed "None." In adjusted analyses, those who indicated "Some" family health history knowledge or "None" were more likely to be assigned male sex at birth, identify as possible gender and sexual minorities, have a self-reported race other than White, have a lower household annual income (<$25,000), or report lower educational attainment (<high school graduate) than those who endorsed "A lot" of knowledge and the reference groups. CONCLUSION: Family health history knowledge may be limited, especially among traditionally underserved populations.
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Nadia Howlader; Dennis Deapen; Ann S Hamilton; Angela Mariotto; Daniel Miller; Lynne S Penberthy; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert M Cronin; Rebecca N Jerome; Brandy Mapes; Regina Andrade; Rebecca Johnston; Jennifer Ayala; David Schlundt; Kemberlee Bonnet; Sunil Kripalani; Kathryn Goggins; Kenneth A Wallston; Mick P Couper; Michael R Elliott; Paul Harris; Mark Begale; Fatima Munoz; Maria Lopez-Class; David Cella; David Condon; Mona AuYoung; Kathleen M Mazor; Steve Mikita; Michael Manganiello; Nicholas Borselli; Stephanie Fowler; Joni L Rutter; Joshua C Denny; Elizabeth W Karlson; Brian K Ahmedani; Christopher J O'Donnell Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Laura M Amendola; M Ragan Hart; Robin L Bennett; Martha Horike-Pyne; Michael Dorschner; Brian Shirts; Gail P Jarvik Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Ranjit Manchanda; Shreeya Patel; Vladimir S Gordeev; Antonis C Antoniou; Shantel Smith; Andrew Lee; John L Hopper; Robert J MacInnis; Clare Turnbull; Susan J Ramus; Simon A Gayther; Paul D P Pharoah; Usha Menon; Ian Jacobs; Rosa Legood Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Joshua C Denny; Joni L Rutter; David B Goldstein; Anthony Philippakis; Jordan W Smoller; Gwynne Jenkins; Eric Dishman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Anthony R Gregg; Mahmoud Aarabi; Susan Klugman; Natalia T Leach; Michael T Bashford; Tamar Goldwaser; Emily Chen; Teresa N Sparks; Honey V Reddi; Aleksandar Rajkovic; Jeffrey S Dungan Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Brandy M Mapes; Christopher S Foster; Sheila V Kusnoor; Marcia I Epelbaum; Mona AuYoung; Gwynne Jenkins; Maria Lopez-Class; Dara Richardson-Heron; Ahmed Elmi; Karl Surkan; Robert M Cronin; Consuelo H Wilkins; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Eric Dishman; Joshua C Denny; Joni L Rutter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lei Zhang; Yining Bao; Moeen Riaz; Jane Tiller; Danny Liew; Xun Zhuang; David J Amor; Aamira Huq; Lara Petelin; Mark Nelson; Paul A James; Ingrid Winship; John J McNeil; Paul Lacaze Journal: Genet Med Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 8.822