Providing patient education: impact on quantity and quality of family health history collection

Family history recording in UK general practice: the lIFeLONG study

BACKGROUND

In order to integrate genomic medicine into routine patient care and stratify personal risk, it is increasingly important to record family history (FH) information in general/family practice records. This is true for classic genetic disease as well as multifactorial conditions. Research suggests that FH recording is currently inadequate.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an up-to-date analysis of the frequency, quality, and accuracy of FH recording in UK general/family practice.

METHODS

An exploratory study, based at St Leonard's Practice, Exeter-a suburban UK general/family practice. Selected adult patients registered for over 1 year were contacted by post and asked to complete a written FH questionnaire. The reported information was compared with the patients' electronic medical record (EMR). Each EMR was assessed for its frequency (how often information was recorded), quality (the level of detail included), and accuracy (how closely the information matched the patient report) of FH recording.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-one patients were approached, 65 (27.0%) responded and 62 (25.7%) were eligible to participate. Forty-three (69.4%) EMRs contained FH information. The most commonly recorded conditions were bowel cancer, breast cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. The mean quality score was 3.64 (out of 5). There was little negative recording. 83.2% of patient-reported FH information was inaccurately recorded or missing from the EMRs.

CONCLUSION

FH information in general/family practice records should be better prepared for the genomic era. Whilst some conditions are well recorded, there is a need for more frequent, higher quality recording with greater accuracy, especially for multifactorial conditions.

Comparison of a Focused Family Cancer History Questionnaire to Family History Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record

INTRODUCTION

Family health history can be a valuable indicator of risk to develop certain cancers. Unfortunately, patient self-reported family history often contains inaccuracies, which might change recommendations for cancer screening. We endeavored to understand the difference between a patient's self-reported family history and their electronic medical record (EMR) family history. One aim of this study was to determine if family history information contained in the EMR differs from patient-reported family history collected using a focused questionnaire.

METHODS

We created the Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) based on current guidelines and distributed to 314 patients in the Department of Family Medicine waiting room June 20 to August 1, 2018. The survey queried patients about specific cancers within their biological family to assess their risk of an inherited cancer syndrome. We used the questionnaire responses as a baseline when comparing family histories in the medical record.

RESULTS

Agreement between the EMR and the questionnaire data decreased as the patients' risk for familial cancer increased. Meaning that the more significant a patient's family cancer history, the less likely it was to be recorded accurately and consistently in the EMR. Patients with low-risk levels, or fewer instances of cancer in the family, had more consistencies between the EMR and the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that physicians often make recommendations on incomplete information that is in the EMR, patients might not receive individualized preventive care based on a more complete family cancer history. This is especially true for individuals with more complicated and significant family history of cancer. An improved method of collecting family history, including increasing patient engagement, may help to decrease this disparity.

Experience and Perceptions of a Family Health History Risk Assessment Tool among Multi-Ethnic Asian Breast Cancer Patients

A family health history-based risk assessment is particularly valuable for guiding cancer screening and treatment strategies, yet an optimal implementation depends upon end-users' values and needs. This is not only true prior to disease development, but also for those already affected. The aim of this study is to explore perceptions of the value of knowing one's family health history (FHH)-based risk, experience using a patient-facing FHH tool and the potential of the tool for wider implementation. Twenty multi-ethnic Asian patients undergoing breast cancer treatment in Singapore completed an FHH-based risk assessment. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted and data were thematically analyzed. All participants were female and slightly more than half were Chinese. The acceptance and usage of an FHH risk assessment tool for cancers and its broader implementation was affected by a perceived importance of personal control over early detection, patient concerns of anxiety for themselves and their families due to risk results, concerns for genetic discrimination, adequacy of follow-up care plans and Asian cultural beliefs toward disease and dying. This study uniquely sheds light on the factors affecting Asian breast cancer patients' perceptions about undergoing an FHH-based risk assessment, which should inform steps for a broader implementation in Asian healthcare systems.

Family Health History-Based Interventions: A Systematic Review of the Literature

CONTEXT

National efforts have advocated for the need to deliver family health history-based interventions to the lay public for more than a decade. Yet, the numbers, characteristics, and outcomes of such interventions are unknown. This first-of-its-kind systematic literature review examines the characteristics and effectiveness of the existing family health history-based interventions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The research team systematically searched peer-reviewed articles published between January 2003 and July 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. These studies assessed various behaviors, including family health history collection/communication with family members, family health history communication with healthcare providers, healthy diet adoption, physical activity level, uptake of medical screenings and genetic tests, and being proactive in healthcare matters. The average methodologic quality score of the studies was 9.9 (SD=1.6) of a theoretical range from 2 to 16.

CONCLUSIONS

Many family health history-based interventions exist to examine a variety of behaviors. Yet, there is room for improvement in methodology because few studies used a randomized or quasi-experimental design. In addition, most included studies did not report objective or longer-term outcome data to examine the effectiveness of family health history-based interventions.

Exploring the Role of Community Health Workers in Improving the Collection of Family Health History: A Pilot Study

Community health workers (CHWs) have been successful partners in addressing public health and health care challenges but have yet to be engaged in efforts to promote family health history (FHH) collection. FHH information is a key factor in determining disease risk and supporting screening and prevention across multiple diseases. The collection of FHH information could be facilitated by the existing cadre of CHWs already working alongside clients and families. In this qualitative study, we interviewed 30 CHWs from Georgia to better understand the current level of knowledge about FHH, perceptions of how FHH collection aligns with their role, and barriers and facilitators in order to support more active involvement of CHWs in FHH collection. Interviews were completed, transcribed, and double coded by three study team members. More than half of CHWs reported knowing their own FHH information. CHWs showed a strong interest and support for collecting FHH in their job, despite limited current engagement in this role. CHWs acknowledged the collection of FHH as being an opportunity to empower clients to have conversations with their providers. To better support this work, CHWs requested training in using and integrating FHH tools into their workflow and support in communicating about FHH with their clients. Our findings suggest that with support and training, CHWs are uniquely positioned to improve FHH collection among their client base. Ultimately, improving FHH collection skills among the population could allow for better integration of risk-stratified approaches that are informed by FHH information for the prevention, management, and treatment of disease.

Effects of family health history-based colorectal cancer prevention education among non-adherent Chinese Americans to colorectal cancer screening guidelines

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the effects of the first family health history (FHH)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention education on 1) FHH of CRC communication with family members and primary care physicians (PCPs), 2) fecal occult blood test (FOBT) uptake, and 3) CRC preventive lifestyle modifications among 50- to 75-year-old Chinese Americans non-adherent to CRC screening guidelines.

METHODS

Using a community-based participatory research approach, we developed and implemented 62 culturally and linguistically appropriate, theory-driven, FHH-based CRC prevention educational workshops across Texas for 344 Chinese Americans (mostly with low education/income) aged 50-75 years who were non-adherent to CRC screening guidelines.

RESULTS

Linear mixed modeling analyses showed that participants' FHH of CRC communication with PCPs and family members significantly increased two-week post-workshop compared to pre-workshop data (ps<0.001). Moreover, at two-weeks post-workshop, 91.9 % of participants underwent FOBT. Nevertheless, no significant changes were found in participants' lifestyles.

CONCLUSION

Our educational workshops successfully increased Chinese Americans' FHH of CRC communication and FOBT uptake. Personalized education with longer follow-ups may be needed in future studies to promote lifestyle changes among Chinese Americans.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Health and public health professionals may adopt our workshop educational materials to provide patient and public CRC prevention education for Chinese Americans.

At the intersection of precision medicine and population health: an implementation-effectiveness study of family health history based systematic risk assessment in primary care

Background

Risk assessment is a precision medicine technique that can be used to enhance population health when applied to prevention. Several barriers limit the uptake of risk assessment in health care systems; and little is known about the potential impact that adoption of systematic risk assessment for screening and prevention in the primary care population might have. Here we present results of a first of its kind multi-institutional study of a precision medicine tool for systematic risk assessment.

Methods

We undertook an implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic risk assessment of primary care patients in 19 primary care clinics at four geographically and culturally diverse healthcare systems. All adult English or Spanish speaking patients were invited to enter personal and family health history data into MeTree, a patient-facing family health history driven risk assessment program, for 27 medical conditions. Risk assessment recommendations followed evidence-based guidelines for identifying and managing those at increased disease risk.

Results

One thousand eight hundred eighty-nine participants completed MeTree, entering information on N = 25,967 individuals. Mean relatives entered = 13.7 (SD 7.9), range 7–74. N = 1443 (76.4%) participants received increased risk recommendations: 597 (31.6%) for monogenic hereditary conditions, 508 (26.9%) for familial-level risk, and 1056 (56.1%) for risk of a common chronic disease. There were 6617 recommendations given across the 1443 participants. In multivariate analysis, only the total number of relatives entered was significantly associated with receiving a recommendation.

Conclusions

A significant percentage of the general primary care population meet criteria for more intensive risk management. In particular 46% for monogenic hereditary and familial level disease risk. Adopting strategies to facilitate systematic risk assessment in primary care could have a significant impact on populations within the U.S. and even beyond.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01956773, registered 10/8/2013.

Cancer Genetic Counseling-Current Practice and Future Challenges

Cancer genetic counseling practice is rapidly evolving, with services being provided in increasingly novel ways. Pretest counseling for cancer patients may be abbreviated from traditional models to cover the elements of informed consent in the broadest of strokes. Genetic testing may be ordered by a cancer genetics professional, oncology provider, or primary care provider. Increasingly, direct-to-consumer testing options are available and utilized by consumers anxious to take control of their genetic health. Finally, genetic information is being used to inform oncology care, from surgical decision-making to selection of chemotherapeutic agent. This review provides an overview of the current and evolving practice of cancer genetic counseling as well as opportunities and challenges for a wide variety of indications in both the adult and pediatric setting.

Applying theory to characterize impediments to dissemination of community-facing family health history tools: a review of the literature

Uptake of community-facing family health history (FHH) tools to identify those at highest risk of disease and target prevention efforts has been consistently low. This review uses the diffusion of innovations (DOI) as a framework to organize the FHH evidence base and identify potential strategies to improve uptake of community-facing FHH tools. Methods for this literature review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We completed systematic searches in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies from 2009 to 2017 and hand searched bibliographies of relevant literature to identify additional articles. We abstracted and synthesized results, which were then organized by the DOI including the innovation-decision making process and characteristics of the innovation likely to influence diffusion (e.g., compatibility, relative advantage, complexity, trialability, observa/bility). Of the 290 unique articles identified, 65 were eligible for full-text review after title and abstract screening; a total of 27 were included in the final abstraction. Eleven unique tools were identified. The most commonly used tool was the Surgeon General's My Family Health Portrait (n =9/27). Only six studies directly evaluated participant perceptions shown to be associated with tool uptake. Studies tended to focus on improving compatibility by customizing tools to the target population's needs and use of educational interventions. Results from this review suggest the need to evaluate strategies to increase the pace of uptake of community-facing FHH tools. These include pragmatic trials that compare different approaches to engage and evaluate participant perceptions of the relative advantage and complexity of tools. Ancillary support strategies may include collaborations with community networks to facilitate use and implementation study designs for rigorous evaluation.

Evaluation of family health history collection methods impact on data and risk assessment outcomes

Information technology applications for patient-collection of family health history (FHH) increase identification of elevated-risk individuals compared to usual care. It is unknown if the method of collection impacts data collected or if simply going directly to the patient is what makes the difference. The objective of this study was to examine differences in data detail and risk identification rates between FHH collection directly from individuals using paper-based forms and an interactive web-based platform. This is a non-randomized epidemiologic study in Singaporean population from 2016 to 2018. Intervention was paper-based versus web-based interactive platform for FHH collection. Participant demographics, FHH detail, and risk assessment results were analyzed. 882 participants enrolled in the study, 481 in the paper-based group and 401 in the web-based group with mean (SD) age of 45.4 (12.98) years and 47.5% male. Web-based FHH collection participants had an increased number of conditions per relative (p-value <0.001), greater frequency of reporting age of onset (p-value <0.001), and greater odds of receiving ≥1 risk recommendation both overall (OR: 3.99 (2.41, 6.59)) and within subcategories of genetic counselling for hereditary cancer syndromes (p-value = 0.041) and screening and prevention for breast (p-value = 0.002) and colon cancer (p-value = 0.005). This has significant implications for clinical care and research efforts where FHH is being assessed. Using interactive information technology platforms to collect FHH can improve the completeness of the data collected and result in increased rates of risk identification. Methods of data collection to maximize benefit should be taken into account in future studies and clinical care.

Awareness of family health history in a predominantly young adult population

Family health history (FHH) is a key predictor of health risk and is universally important in preventive care. However, patients may not be aware of the importance of FHH, and thus, may fail to accurately or completely share FHH with health providers, thereby limiting its utility. In this study, we conducted an online survey of 294 young adults and employees based at a US university setting regarding their knowledge, sharing behaviors, and perceived importance of FHH, and use of electronic clinical tools to document and update FHH. We also evaluated two educational interventions (written and video) to promote knowledge about FHH and its importance to health. We found that 93% of respondents were highly aware of their FHH, though only 39% reported collecting it and 4% using an online FHH tool. Seventy-three percent of respondents, particularly women, had shared FHH with their doctor when prompted, and fewer had shared it with family members. Participants in the video group were significantly more likely to understand the benefits of FHH than those in the written group (p = 0.02). In summary, educational resources, either video or written, will be helpful to promote FHH collection, sharing, and use of online FHH tools.

Family health history: underused for actionable risk assessment

Family health history (FHH) is the most useful means of assessing risk for common chronic diseases. The odds ratio for risk of developing disease with a positive FHH is frequently greater than 2, and actions can be taken to mitigate risk by adhering to screening guidelines, genetic counselling, genetic risk testing, and other screening methods. Challenges to the routine acquisition of FHH include constraints on provider time to collect data and the difficulty in accessing risk calculators. Disease-specific and broader risk assessment software platforms have been developed, many with clinical decision support and informatics interoperability, but few access patient information directly. Software that allows integration of FHH with the electronic medical record and clinical decision support capabilities has provided solutions to many of these challenges. Patient facing, electronic medical record, and web-enabled FHH platforms have been developed, and can provide greater identification of risk compared with conventional FHH ascertainment in primary care. FHH, along with cascade screening, can be an important component of population health management approaches to overall reduction of risk.

Cases and evidence for panel testing in cancer genetics: Is site-specific testing dead?

Historically in cancer genetic counseling, when a pathogenic variant is found which explains the cancers in the family, at risk family members are offered site-specific testing to identify whether or not they have the previously identified pathogenic variant. Factors such as turnaround times, cost, and insurance coverage all made site-specific testing the most appropriate testing option; however, as turnaround times and costs have substantially dropped and the recognition of double heterozygous families and families with nontraditional presentations has increased, the utility of site-specific testing should be questioned. We present four cases where ordering site-specific testing would have missed a clinically relevant pathogenic variant which raises the question of whether or not site-specific testing should be regularly used in cancer genetic testing.

The Three-Generation Pedigree: A Critical Tool in Cancer Genetics Care

The family history, a rather low-tech tool, is the backbone of genetic assessment and guides risk assessment and genetic testing decisions. The importance of the pedigree and its application to genetic practice is often overlooked and underestimated. Unfortunately, particularly with electronic health records, standard pedigrees are not routinely constructed. A clear understanding of how pedigrees are employed in clinical oncology practice may lead to improved collection and use of family history data.
.

Family health history: an essential starting point for personalized risk assessment and disease prevention

Family health history (FHH) information is well established as a basis for assessing a patient's personal disease risk, but is underutilized for diagnosis and making medical recommendations. Epidemiological and genetic information have heightened the value of FHH to an individual's health. This has motivated the development of new FHH collection tools and strategies for family members, but will require greater awareness and knowledge by both patients and practitioners. FHH will be increasingly important as genomic data become a mainstay of medical diagnostics, since in many cases, a medically important FHH results from lineage-specific genetic variants. The impact of complementary FHH and genomic information will drive the pursuit of personalized and precise targeting of treatments and interventions aimed at maintaining patient health.

Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer/Lynch syndrome in three dimensions

BACKGROUND

Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is defined by family history, and Lynch syndrome (LS) is defined genetically. However, universal tumour testing is now increasingly used to screen for patients with defective mismatch repair. This mixing of the results of family history, tumour testing and germline testing produces multiple permutations and combinations that can foster confusion. We wanted to clarify hereditary colorectal cancer using the three dimensions of classification: family history, tumour testing and germline testing.

METHODS

Family history (Amsterdam I or II criteria versus not Amsterdam criteria) was used to define patients and families with HNPCC. Tumour testing and germline testing were then performed to sub-classify patients and families. The permutations of these classifications are applied to our registry.

RESULTS

There were 234 HNPCC families: 129 had LS of which 55 were three-dimensional Lynch (family history, tumour testing and germline testing), 66 were two-dimensional Lynch and eight were one-dimensional Lynch. A total of 10 families had tumour Lynch (tumours with microsatellite instability or loss of expression of a mismatch repair protein but an Amsterdam-negative family and negative germline testing), five were Lynch like (Amsterdam-positive family, tumours with microsatellite instability or loss of expression of a mismatch repair protein on immunohistochemistry but negative germline testing), 26 were familial colorectal cancer type X and 95 were HNPCC.

CONCLUSION

Hereditary colorectal cancer can be confusing. Sorting families in three dimensions can clarify the confusion and may direct further testing and, ultimately, surveillance.

Protocol for the "Implementation, adoption, and utility of family history in diverse care settings" study

Background

Risk assessment with a thorough family health history is recommended by numerous organizations and is now a required component of the annual physical for Medicare beneficiaries under the Affordable Care Act. However, there are several barriers to incorporating robust risk assessments into routine care. MeTree, a web-based patient-facing health risk assessment tool, was developed with the aim of overcoming these barriers. In order to better understand what factors will be instrumental for broader adoption of risk assessment programs like MeTree in clinical settings, we obtained funding to perform a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness study in primary care clinics at five diverse healthcare systems. Here, we describe the study’s protocol.

Methods/design

MeTree collects personal medical information and a three-generation family health history from patients on 98 conditions. Using algorithms built entirely from current clinical guidelines, it provides clinical decision support to providers and patients on 30 conditions. All adult patients with an upcoming well-visit appointment at one of the 20 intervention clinics are eligible to participate. Patient-oriented risk reports are provided in real time. Provider-oriented risk reports are uploaded to the electronic medical record for review at the time of the appointment. Implementation outcomes are enrollment rate of clinics, providers, and patients (enrolled vs approached) and their representativeness compared to the underlying population. Primary effectiveness outcomes are the percent of participants newly identified as being at increased risk for one of the clinical decision support conditions and the percent with appropriate risk-based screening. Secondary outcomes include percent change in those meeting goals for a healthy lifestyle (diet, exercise, and smoking). Outcomes are measured through electronic medical record data abstraction, patient surveys, and surveys/qualitative interviews of clinical staff.

Discussion

This study evaluates factors that are critical to successful implementation of a web-based risk assessment tool into routine clinical care in a variety of healthcare settings. The result will identify resource needs and potential barriers and solutions to implementation in each setting as well as an understanding potential effectiveness.

Trial registration

NCT01956773

Securing and Documenting Cancer Family History in the Age of the Electronic Medical Record

Family health history is one of the least expensive, most useful, and most underused methods available to conduct assessments of the genetic aspect of a condition or to target the need for a genetic evaluation. This article introduces to the surgical oncologist the reason and process of collecting family history information. As medical records shift from paper to electronic formats, pedigree drawings are not readily available within the electronic health records. International efforts are underway to develop searchable, updatable, and interoperable formats that can collect family history information to inform clinical decision support for genetic risk assessment.

Implementation of health risk assessments with family health history: barriers and benefits

Health risk assessments provide an opportunity to emphasise health promotion and disease prevention for individuals and populations at large. A key component of health risk assessments is the detailed collection of family health history information. This information is helpful in determining risk both for common chronic conditions and more rare diseases as well. While the concept of health risk assessments has been around since the Framingham Heart Study was launched in the 1950s, and such assessments are commonly performed in the workplace today, the US healthcare system has been slow to embrace them and the emphasis on prevention that they represent. Before wider implementation of health risk assessments within healthcare can be seen, several concerns must be addressed: (1) provider impact, (2) patient impact, (3) validity of patient-entered data and (4) health outcomes effect. Here, we describe recent developments in health risk assessment design that are helping to address these issues.