Clinically relevant lessons from Family HealthLink: a cancer and coronary heart disease familial risk assessment tool

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

Introduction. Personalized web-based clinical decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening could address knowledge gaps, enhance patient autonomy in shared decision-making, and promote equitable care. The purpose of this review was to present evidence on the availability, usability, feasibility, acceptability, quality, and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools to support their integration into clinical care. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to conduct this review. We searched 6 databases to identify literature on the development, validation, usability, feasibility, acceptability testing, and uptake of the tools into practice settings. Quality assessment for each tool was conducted using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument, with quality scores ranging from 0 to 63 (lowest-highest). Results. We identified 10 tools for breast cancer prevention and 9 tools for screening. The tools included individual (e.g., age), clinical (e.g., genomic risk factors), and health behavior (e.g., alcohol use) characteristics. Fourteen tools included race/ethnicity, but no tool incorporated contextual factors (e.g., insurance, access) associated with breast cancer. All tools were internally or externally validated. Six tools had undergone usability testing in samples including White (median, 71%; range, 9%-96%), insured (99%; 97%-100%) women, with college education or higher (60%; 27%-100%). All of the tools were developed and tested in academic settings. Seven (37%) tools showed potential evidence of uptake in clinical practice. The tools had an average quality assessment score of 21 (range, 9-39). Conclusions. There is limited evidence on testing and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools in diverse clinical settings. The development, testing, and integration of tools in academic and nonacademic settings could potentially improve uptake and equitable access to these tools.

Highlights

There were 19 personalized, interactive, Web-based decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening.Breast cancer outcomes were personalized based on individual clinical characteristics (e.g., age, medical history), genomic risk factors (e.g., BRCA1/2), race and ethnicity, and health behaviors (e.g., smoking). The tools did not include contextual factors (e.g., insurance status, access to screening facilities) that could potentially contribute to breast cancer outcomes.Validation, usability, acceptability, and feasibility testing were conducted mostly among White and/or insured patients with some college education (or higher) in academic settings. There was limited evidence on testing and uptake of the tools in nonacademic clinical settings.

Development of a web-based, theory-guided narrative intervention for women at elevated risk for breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of a web-based, theory-guided narrative intervention that replaces conventional pre-test genetic counseling for women at elevated breast cancer risk.

METHODS

We used an iterative process that was guided by health behavior theory and feedback from multiple stakeholder groups including: 1) content input from genetic experts; 2) study team input; 3) review of video storyboards, video example, study logo, recruitment materials, post-test patient preference counseling survey, and additional study surveys; 4) video series development; and 5) intervention review and finalization of study-related materials.

RESULTS

The intervention is patient-centered providing convenience and an opportunity for an individual's preferences for post-test counseling delivery. The intervention's efficacy is being determined in a randomized controlled trial compared to conventional genetic counseling for adherence to recommended guidelines and changes in knowledge, perception of breast cancer risk, breast cancer-specific worry, and satisfaction with counseling.

CONCLUSION

If efficacious, the intervention may improve the delivery of the genetic testing and counseling process, inform best practices, and reduce the genetic counseling workforce burden.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The developed intervention has the potential to improve the genetic testing and counseling experience for women at elevated risk for breast cancer, inform best practices, and reduce genetic counseling workforce burden.

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.

Racial differences in family health history knowledge of type 2 diabetes: exploring the role of interpersonal mechanisms

Collecting complete and accurate family health history is critical to preventing type 2 diabetes. Whether there are any racial difference in family health history knowledge of type 2 diabetes and whether such differences are related to interpersonal mechanisms remain unclear. We seek to identify the interpersonal mechanisms that give rise to discrepancies in family health history knowledge of type 2 diabetes in families of different racial backgrounds. We analyze informant-dyad consensus with respect to shared family history of type 2 diabetes in 127 informants of 45 families in the greater Cincinnati area (white: 28 families, 78 informants; black/African-American: 17 families, 49 informants). We first document a difference in informant-dyad consensus by race and then test whether this difference can be explained by interpersonal ties, particularly health communication. Compared with their white counterparts, dyads in families of black/African-American background are more likely to have an uneven distribution of knowledge, with one informant knowing and the other not knowing his/her family health history. The racial difference is explained by dyads in families of black/African-American background having fewer reciprocal health communication ties. While associated with informant-dyad consensus, education, kinship ties, and closeness ties do not account for the observed racial difference. Activating health communication is a key to improving family health history knowledge, especially in families of black/African-American background. Researchers and clinicians should leverage communication ties in the family network for better collection and utilization of family health history in preventive services.

Early Outcome Data Assessing Utility of a Post-Test Genomic Counseling Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Precision Health

Information on patients’ preferences is essential to guide the development of more efficient genomic counseling service delivery models. We examined patient preferences in the context of use of a post-test genomic counseling framework on patients (n = 44) with chronic disease receiving online test reports for eight different diseases and one drug-response result. We also explored patients’ disease risk awareness, recall of test report information, and confidence in knowing what to do with their test results. Prior to the post-test genomic counseling session, all participants viewed at least one test report; 81.6% of available test reports were reviewed in total. Participants requested more phone (36) than in-person counseling sessions (8), and phone sessions were shorter (mean 29.1 min; range 12–75 min) than in-person sessions (mean 52.8 min; range 23–85 min). A total of 182 test reports were discussed over the course of 44 counseling sessions (mean 4.13, range 1–9). Thirty-six (81.8%) participants requested assessment for additional medical/family history concerns. In exploring patient experiences of disease risk awareness and recall, no significant differences were identified in comparison to those of participants (n = 199) that had received in-person post-test genomic counseling in a parent study randomized controlled trial (RCT). In summary, a novel post-test genomic counseling framework allowed for a tailored approach to counseling based on the participants’ predetermined choices.

Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Genomic Counseling for Patients Receiving Personalized and Actionable Complex Disease Reports

There has been very limited study of patients with chronic disease receiving potentially actionable genomic based results or the utilization of genetic counselors in the online result delivery process. We conducted a randomized controlled trial on 199 patients with chronic disease each receiving eight personalized and actionable complex disease reports online. Primary study aims were to assess the impact of in-person genomic counseling on 1) causal attribution of disease risk, 2) personal awareness of disease risk, and 3) perceived risk of developing a particular disease. Of 98 intervention arm participants (mean age = 57.8; 39% female) randomized for in-person genomic counseling, 76 (78%) were seen. In contrast, control arm participants (n = 101; mean age = 58.5; 54% female) were initially not offered genomic counseling as part of the study protocol but were able to access in-person genomic counseling, if they requested it, 3-months post viewing of at least one test report and post-completion of the study-specific follow-up survey. A total of 64 intervention arm and 59 control arm participants completed follow-up survey measures. We found that participants receiving in-person genomic counseling had enhanced objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution for multiple complex diseases. Genomic counseling was associated with lowered participant causal beliefs in genetic influence across all eight diseases, compared to control participants. Our findings also illustrate that for the majority of diseases under study, intervention arm participants believed they knew their genetic risk status better than control arm subjects. Disease risk was modified for the majority during genomic counseling, due to the assessment of more comprehensive family history. In conclusion, for patients receiving personalized and actionable genomic results through a web portal, genomic counseling enhanced their objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution to multiple common diseases. These results support the development of additional genomic counseling interventions to ensure a high level of patient comprehension and improve patient-centered health outcomes.

Evaluation of the Families SHARE workbook: an educational tool outlining disease risk and healthy guidelines to reduce risk of heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer and colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Common diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer are etiologically complex with multiple risk factors (e.g., environment, genetic, lifestyle). These risk factors tend to cluster in families, making families an important social context for intervention and lifestyle-focused disease prevention. The Families Sharing Health Assessment and Risk Evaluation (SHARE) workbook was designed as an educational tool outlining family health history based risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer. The current paper describes the steps taken to develop and evaluate the workbook employing a user-centered design approach.

METHODS

The workbook was developed in four steps, culminating in an evaluation focusing on understanding and usability of the tool. The evaluation was based on two Phases of data collected from a sample of mothers of young children in the Washington, D.C., area. A baseline assessment and follow-up approximately two weeks after receipt of the workbook were conducted, as well as focus groups with participants. The design of the workbook was refined in response to participant feedback from the first evaluation Phase and subsequently re-evaluated with a new sample.

RESULTS

After incorporating user-based feedback and revising the workbook, Phase 2 evaluation results indicated that understanding of the workbook components improved for all sections (from 6.26 to 6.81 on a 7-point scale). In addition, 100% of users were able to use the algorithm to assess their disease risk and over 60% used the algorithm to assess family members' disease risk. At follow-up, confidence to increase fruit, vegetable and fiber intake improved significantly, as well.

CONCLUSIONS

The Families SHARE workbook was developed and evaluated resulting in a family health history tool that is both understandable and usable by key stakeholders. This educational tool will be used in intervention studies assessing the effectiveness of family genomics health educators who use the Families SHARE workbook to disseminate family risk information and encourage risk reducing behaviors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01498276 . Registered 21 December 2011.