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

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of family cancer history collection tools in oncology clinical practices

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of family cancer history (FCH) collection tools in clinical practices and community settings by assessing clinicians' perceptions of implementing a chatbot interface to collect FCH information and provide personalized results to patients and providers.

OBJECTIVES

By identifying design and implementation features that facilitate tool adoption and integration into clinical workflows, this study can inform future FCH tool development and adoption in healthcare settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quantitative data were collected using survey to evaluate the implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, and sustainability of the chatbot tool for collecting FCH. Semistructured interviews were conducted to gather qualitative data on respondents' experiences using the tool and recommendations for enhancements.

RESULTS

We completed data collection with 19 providers (n = 9, 47%), clinical staff (n = 5, 26%), administrators (n = 4, 21%), and other staff (n = 1, 5%) affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. FCH was systematically collected using a wide range of tools at sites, with information being inserted into the patient's medical record. Participants found the chatbot tool to be highly acceptable, with the tool aligning with existing workflows, and were open to adopting the tool into their practice.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We further the evidence base about the appropriateness of scripted chatbots to support FCH collection. Although the tool had strong support, the varying clinical workflows across clinic sites necessitate that future FCH tool development accommodates customizable implementation strategies. Implementation support is necessary to overcome technical and logistical barriers to enhance the uptake of FCH tools in clinical practices and community settings.

FHH Quick App Review: How Can a Quality Review Process Assist Primary Care Providers in Choosing a Family Health History App for Patient Care?

Family health history (FHH) is a data type serving risk assessment, diagnosis, research, and preventive health. Despite technological leaps in genomic variant detection, FHH remains the most accessible, least expensive, and most practical assessment tool for assessing risks attributable to genetic inheritance. The purpose of this manuscript is to outline a process to assist primary care professionals in choosing FHH digital tools for patient care based on the new ISO/TS 82304-2 Technical Specification (TS), which is a recently developed method to determine eHealth app quality. With a focus on eHealth in primary care, we applied the quality label concept to FHH, and how a primary care physician can quickly review the quality and reliability of an FHH app. Based on our review of the ISO TS’s 81 questions, we compiled a list of 25 questions that are recommended to be more succinct as an initial review. We call this process the FHH Quick App Review. Our ‘informative-only’ 25 questions do not produce a quality score, but a guide to complete an initial review of FHH apps. Most of the questions are straight from the ISO TS, some are modified or de novo. We believe the 25 questions are not only relevant to FHH app reviews but could also serve to aid app development and clinical implementation.

Prevalence of Americans reporting a family history of cancer indicative of increased cancer risk: Estimates from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey

The collection and evaluation of family health history in a clinical setting presents an opportunity to discuss cancer risk, tailor cancer screening recommendations, and identify people with an increased risk of carrying a pathogenic variant who may benefit from referral to genetic counseling and testing. National recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer screening indicate that men and women who have a first-degree relative affected with these types of cancers may benefit from talking to a healthcare provider about starting screening at an earlier age and other options for cancer prevention. The prevalence of reporting a first-degree relative who had cancer was assessed among adult respondents of the 2015 National Health Interview Survey who had never had cancer themselves (n = 27,999). We found 35.6% of adults reported having at least one first-degree relative with cancer at any site. Significant differences in reporting a family history of cancer were observed by sex, age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and census region. Nearly 5% of women under age 50 and 2.5% of adults under age 50 had at least one first-degree relative with breast cancer or colorectal cancer, respectively. We estimated that 5.8% of women had a family history of breast or ovarian cancer that may indicate increased genetic risk. A third of U.S. adults who have never had cancer report a family history of cancer in a first-degree relative. This finding underscores the importance of using family history to inform discussions about cancer risk and screening options between healthcare providers and their patients.

Formative Evaluation of the Families SHARE Disease Risk Tool among Low-Income African Americans

INTRODUCTION

Family Health Histories (FHH) have been endorsed by the surgeon general as a powerful yet underutilized tool for identifying individuals at risk for complex chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. FHH tools provide a mechanism for increasing communication about disease history and motivating behavior change to reduce disease risk. A critical gap in translation efforts includes a lack of research that adapts and evaluates tools for low-income, minority populations who experience disparities in chronic disease.

METHODS

This study is a formative mixed-methods evaluation of an evidence-based FHH intervention called "Families SHARE" among African Americans residing in low-income neighborhoods. Participants (N = 51) completed assessments before and 6 weeks after receiving the intervention, including surveys and focus groups. We evaluated (a) their use, understanding, and perceived value of the tool; (b) if the intervention led to increased intentions to adopt disease risk-reducing behaviors among those with heightened disease risk, given their FHH; and (c) acceptability of and recommendations for the tool.

RESULTS

The quantitative and qualitative data indicated that this population valued and used the tool, and it prompted communication about FHH with family, friends, and others. Receipt of the intervention resulted in mixed accuracy of their perceived disease risk, and it did not shift intentions to change health behaviors. Qualitative data provide insights for future iterations of the Families SHARE tool.

CONCLUSION

Families SHARE is an engaging FHH tool that can be further tailored to optimize its value and benefits for low-income African Americans.

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.

Modernizing family health history: achievable strategies to reduce implementation gaps

Family health history (FHH) is a valuable yet underused healthcare tool for assessing health risks for both prevalent disorders like diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases, and for rare, monogenic disorders. Full implementation of FHH collection and analysis in healthcare could improve both primary and secondary disease prevention for individuals and, through cascade testing, make at risk family members eligible for pre-symptomatic testing and preventative interventions. In addition to risk assessment in the clinic, FHH is increasingly important for interpreting clinical genetic testing results and for research connecting health risks to genomic variation. Despite this value, diverse implementation gaps in clinical settings undermine its potential clinical value and limit the quality of connected health and genomic data. The NHGRI Family Health History Group, an open-membership, US-based group with international members, believes that integrating FHH in healthcare and research is more important than ever, and that achievable implementation advances, including education, are urgently needed to boost the pace of translational utility in genomic medicine. An inventory of implementation gaps and proposed achievable strategies to address them, representing a consensus developed in meetings from 2019-2020, is presented here. The proposed measures are diverse, interdisciplinary, and are guided by experience and ongoing implementation and research efforts.

Primary care physician experiences utilizing a family health history tool with electronic health record-integrated clinical decision support: an implementation process assessment

Family health history (FHH) screening plays a key role in disease risk identification and tailored disease prevention strategies. Primary care physicians (PCPs) are in a frontline position to provide personalized medicine recommendations identified through FHH screening; however, adoption of FHH screening tools has been slow and inconsistent in practice. Information is also lacking on PCP facilitators and barriers of utilizing family history tools with clinical decision support (CDS) embedded in the electronic health record (EHR). This study reports on PCPs' initial experiences with the Genetic and Wellness Assessment (GWA), a patient-administered FHH screening tool utilizing the EHR and CDS. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 PCPs who use the GWA in a network of community-based practices. Four main themes regarding GWA implementation emerged: benefits to clinical care, challenges in practice, CDS-specific issues, and physician-recommended improvements. Sub-themes included value in improving patient access to genetic services, inadequate time to discuss GWA recommendations, lack of patient follow-through with recommendations, and alert fatigue. While PCPs valued the GWA's clinical utility, a number of challenges were identified in the administration and use of the GWA in practice. Based on participants' recommendations, iterative changes have been made to the GWA and workflow to increase efficiency, upgrade the CDS process, and provide additional education to PCPs and patients. Future studies are needed to assess a diverse sample of physicians' and patients' perspectives on the utility of FHH screening utilizing EHR-based genomics recommendations.