A pilot study of a family history risk assessment tool for cardiovascular disease

Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review

Background

Many medical family history (FH) tools are available for various settings. Although FH tools can be a powerful health screening tool in primary care (PC), they are currently underused.

Objectives

This review explores the FH tools currently available for PC and evaluates their clinical performance.

Methods

Five databases were systematically searched until May 2021. Identified tools were evaluated on the following criteria: time-to-complete, integration with electronic health record (EMR) systems, patient administration, risk-assessment ability, evidence-based management recommendations, analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility.

Results

We identified 26 PC FH tools. Analytical and clinical validity was poorly reported and agreement between FH and gold standard was commonly inadequately reported and assessed. Sensitivity was acceptable; specificity was found in half of the reviewed tools to be poor. Most reviewed tools showed a capacity to successfully identify individuals with increased risk of disease (6.2–84.6% of high and/or moderate or increased risk individuals).

Conclusion

Despite the potential of FH tools to improve risk stratification of patients in PC, clinical performance of current tools remains limited as well as their integration in EMR systems. Twenty-one FH tools are designed to be self-administered by patients.

Current state and future directions of genomic medicine in aortic dissection: A path to prevention and personalized care

Aortic dissection confers high mortality and morbidity rates despite advances in treatment, impacts quality of life, and contributes immense burden to the healthcare system globally. Efforts to prevent aortic dissection through screening and management of modifiable risk factors and early detection of aneurysms should incorporate genomic information, as it is integral to stratifying risk. However, effective integration of genomic-guided risk assessment into clinical practice will require addressing implementation barriers that currently permeate our healthcare systems. The Aortic Dissection Collaborative was established to define aortic dissection research priorities through patient engagement. Using a collaborative patient-centered feedback model, our Genomic Medicine Working Group identified related research priorities that could be investigated by pragmatic interventional studies aimed at aortic dissection prevention, utilization of genomic information to improve patient outcomes, and access to genomic medicine services. Further research is also needed to identify the genomic, lifestyle, and environmental risk factors that contribute to aortic dissection so these data can be incorporated into future comparative effectiveness studies to prevent aortic dissection.

Perceptions of family history and genetic testing and feasibility of pedigree development among African Americans with hypertension

BACKGROUND

Pedigree development, family history, and genetic testing are thought to be useful in improving outcomes of chronic illnesses such as hypertension (HTN). However, the clinical utility of pedigree development is still unknown. Further, little is known about the perceptions of African Americans (AAs) of family history and genetic testing.

AIMS

This study examined the feasibility of developing pedigrees for AAs with HTN and explored perceptions of family history and genetic research among AAs with HTN.

METHODS

The US Surgeon General's My Family Health Portrait was administered, and 30-60 min in-person individual interviews were conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze pedigree data. Interview transcripts were analyzed with content analysis and constant comparison.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine AAs with HTN were recruited from one free clinic (15 women, 14 men; mean age 49 years, standard deviation (SD) 9.6). Twenty-six (90%) reported their family history in sufficient detail to develop a pedigree. Perceptions of family history included knowledge of HTN in the family, culturally influenced family teaching about HTN, and response to family history of HTN. Most participants agreed to future genetic testing and DNA collection because they wanted to help others; some said they needed more information and others expressed a concern for privacy.

CONCLUSION

The majority of AAs in this sample possessed extensive knowledge of HTN within their family and were able to develop a three-generation pedigree with assistance. The majority were willing to participate in future genetic research.

Family history tools for primary care are not ready yet to be implemented. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Taking the family history helps the doctor in estimating the probability of disease in individual patients. However, significant barriers to obtaining adequate family history information remain. Tools overcoming these barriers might support family physicians in this task.

OBJECTIVE

To review systematically the characteristics of existing family history tools and discuss their potential use in primary care.

METHODS

Studies were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase and Cinahl from 1 January 2002 until May 2012. All authors independently screened studies and included original research papers on family history tools of which assessment had been performed or was planned. We reviewed diseases for which family history information was collected, study setting, tool design, type of family history collection, presence of risk-assessment and recommendations for management, and assessment (categorized as either validity or benefit).

RESULTS

Eighteen family history tools were identified: six generic, two on cardiovascular disease and ten on cancer. The six generic tools were partly tested in primary care (3x), are mainly computerized (4x), rarely include management recommendations for the physician (1x) and were partly validated against a reference standard (genetic counsellor) (3x, plus one planned). Of the five specific tools studied in primary care, none was validated. No family history tool allows electronic transfer of family history information to electronic medical record systems. Use of a family history tool improved identification of patients at risk for disease.

CONCLUSION

Several promising family history tools for primary care have been developed but large-scale implementation cannot be advised yet, based on available validation studies.

Validation of My Family Health Portrait for six common heritable conditions

PURPOSE

To assess the ability of My Family Health Portrait to accurately collect family history for six common heritable disorders.

BACKGROUND

Family history is useful to assess disease risk but is not widely used. We compared the pedigree from My Family Health Portrait, an online tool for collection of family history, to a pedigree supplemented by a genetics professional.

METHODS

One hundred fifty volunteers collected their family histories using My Family Health Portrait. A genetic counselor interviewed the volunteers to validate the entries and add diagnoses, as needed. The content and the affection assignments of the pedigrees were compared. The pedigrees were entered into Family Healthware to assess risks for the diseases.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of My Family Health Portrait varied among the six diseases (67-100%) compared to the supplemented pedigree. The specificities ranged from 92 to 100%. When the pedigrees were used to generate risk scores, My Family Health Portrait yielded identical risks to the supplemented pedigree for 94-99% of the volunteers for diabetes and colon, breast, and ovarian cancer. The agreement was lower for coronary artery disease (68%) and stroke (83%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data support the validity of My Family Health Portrait pedigrees for four common conditions--diabetes and colon, breast, and ovarian cancer. The tool performed less well for coronary artery disease and stroke. We recommend that the tool be improved to better capture information for these two common conditions.

Literacy assessment of family health history tools for public health prevention

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically identify and evaluate the readability and document complexity of currently available family history tools for the general public.

METHODS

Three steps were undertaken to identify family history tools for evaluation: (a) Internet searches, (b) expert consultation, and (c) literature searches. Tools identified were assessed for readability using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula. The complexity of documents (i.e., forms collecting family history information) was assessed using the PMOSE/IKIRSCH document readability formula.

RESULTS

A total of 78 tools were identified, 47 of which met the criteria for inclusion. SMOG reading grade levels for multimedia-based tools ranged from 10.1 to 18.3, with an average score of 13.6. For print-based tools, SMOG ranged from 8.7 to 14.1, with an average score of 12.0. Document complexity ranged from very low complexity (level 1 proficiency) to high complexity (level 4 proficiency).

CONCLUSION

The majority of tools are written at a reading grade level that is beyond the 8th grade average reading level in the United States. The lack of family history tools that are easy to read or use may compromise their potential effectiveness in identifying individuals at increased risk for chronic diseases in the general population.