Development and evaluation of a brief self-completed family history screening tool for common chronic disease prevention in primary care

Exploring the barriers to and facilitators of implementing CanRisk in primary care: a qualitative thematic framework analysis

BACKGROUND

The CanRisk tool enables the collection of risk factor information and calculation of estimated future breast cancer risks based on the multifactorial Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model. Despite BOADICEA being recommended in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and CanRisk being freely available for use, the CanRisk tool has not yet been widely implemented in primary care.

AIM

To explore the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of the CanRisk tool in primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A multi-methods study was conducted with primary care practitioners (PCPs) in the East of England.

METHOD

Participants used the CanRisk tool to complete two vignette-based case studies; semi-structured interviews gained feedback about the tool; and questionnaires collected demographic details and information about the structural characteristics of the practices.

RESULTS

Sixteen PCPs (eight GPs and eight nurses) completed the study. The main barriers to implementation included: time needed to complete the tool; competing priorities; IT infrastructure; and PCPs' lack of confidence and knowledge to use the tool. Main facilitators included: easy navigation of the tool; its potential clinical impact; and the increasing availability of and expectation to use risk prediction tools.

CONCLUSION

There is now a greater understanding of the barriers and facilitators that exist when using CanRisk in primary care. The study has highlighted that future implementation activities should focus on reducing the time needed to complete a CanRisk calculation, integrating the CanRisk tool into existing IT infrastructure, and identifying appropriate contexts in which to conduct a CanRisk calculation. PCPs may also benefit from information about cancer risk assessment and CanRisk-specific training.

Who are the patients being offered the faecal immunochemical test in routine English general practice, and for what symptoms? A prospective descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) was introduced to triage patients with lower-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer (CRC) in English primary care in 2018. While there is growing evidence on its utility to triage patients in this setting, evidence is still limited on how official FIT guidance is being used, for which patients and for what symptoms. We aimed to investigate the use of FIT in primary care practice for lower-risk patients who did not immediately meet criteria for urgent referral.

DESIGN

A prospective, descriptive study of symptomatic patients offered a FIT in primary care between January and June 2020.

SETTING

East of England general practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Consenting patients (aged ≥40 years) who were seen by their general practitioners (GPs) with symptoms of possible CRC for whom a FIT was requested. We excluded patients receiving a FIT for asymptomatic screening purposes, or patients deemed by GPs as lacking capacity for informed consent. Data were obtained via patient questionnaire, medical and laboratory records.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

FIT results (10 µg Hb/g faeces defined a positive result); patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics; patient-reported and GP-recorded symptoms, symptom severity and symptom agreement between patient and GP (% and kappa statistics).

RESULTS

Complete data were available for 310 patients, median age 70 (IQR 61-77) years, 53% female and 23% FIT positive. Patients most commonly reported change in bowel habit (69%) and fatigue (57%), while GPs most commonly recorded abdominal pain (25%) and change in bowel habit (24%). Symptom agreement ranged from 44% (fatigue) to 80% (unexplained weight loss). Kappa agreement was universally low across symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Almost a quarter of this primary care cohort of symptomatic patients with FIT testing were found to be positive. However, there was low agreement between patient-reported and GP-recorded symptoms. This may impact cancer risk assessment and optimal patient management in primary care.

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.

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.

Genetics in primary care: validating a tool to pre-symptomatically assess common disease risk using an Australian questionnaire on family history

BACKGROUND

A positive family history for diabetes, cardiovascular diseases or various types of cancer increases the relative risk for these diseases by 2 to 5 times compared to people without a positive family history. Taking a family history in daily general practice is useful for early, pre-symptomatic risk assessment, but at the moment no standardized family history questionnaire is available in the Dutch language. In this study we used a 9-item questionnaire, previously developed and applied in an Australian study, to probe family history for 7 specific conditions. The aim of the present qualitative study was to test face and content validity of the Australian family history questionnaire in Dutch general practice and to advance the standardization of intake information at an international level. We conducted 10 cognitive interviews with patients over 4 rounds, using the verbal probing technique. This approach allows the collection of data through a series of probe questions, with the aim of obtaining detailed information. After each interview round we modified the questionnaire based on the answers of the interviewees. We also performed 10 semi-structured interviews with general practitioners (GPs) to get their opinion on the content and usability of the questionnaire in practice.

RESULTS

Patients varied in age and gender, and 4 patients were known to have a genetic disorder. The GPs varied in age, gender, clinical experience, type of practice and location. In the first round, seven problems were identified in the questionnaire in the categories Comprehension (1), Recall (2), Judgement (0), Response process (2) and Completeness, (2); by the fourth and final round no problems remained. The content and usability of the questionnaire were assessed positively.

CONCLUSIONS

When translated for everyday use in Dutch general practice, the Australian family history questionnaire showed a strong face and content validity, and GPs were positive regarding feasibility. Validation of this family history questionnaire could aid in the standardized integration of genetically relevant information in the electronic health record and clinical research. Conspicuous questionnaire information might alert the GP regarding specific conditions and enable detection of disease at an earlier stage. Additional questionnaire requirements needed however are accurate patient information and consistent, accessible locations in the electronic health record with a possibility to be automatically registered. By deriving a Dutch family history questionnaire convenient for GPs, we adapted a template that might also prove useful for other countries and other medical professionals. This development could make the rapid operationalization of readily available genetic knowledge feasible in daily practice and clinical research, leading to improved medical care.

Inflammatory disease and C-reactive protein in relation to therapeutic ionising radiation exposure in the US Radiologic Technologists

Chronic inflammation underlies many autoimmune diseases, including hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and rheumatoid arthritis, also type-2 diabetes and osteoarthritis. Associations have been suggested of high-dose ionising radiation exposure with type-2 diabetes and elevated levels of C-reactive protein, a marker of chronic inflammation. In this analysis we used a proportional hazards model to assess effects of radiotherapy on risks of subsequent inflammatory disease morbidity in 110,368 US radiologic technologists followed from a baseline survey (1983–1989/1994–1998) through 2008. We used a linear model to assess log-transformed C-reactive protein concentration following radiotherapy in 1326 technologists. Relative risk of diabetes increased following radiotherapy (p < 0.001), and there was a borderline significant increasing trend per treatment (p = 0.092). For osteoarthritis there was increased relative risk associated with prior radiotherapy on all questionnaires (p = 0.005), and a significant increasing trend per previous treatment (p = 0.024). No consistent increases were observed for other types of inflammatory disease (hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, rheumatoid arthritis) associated with radiotherapy. There was a borderline significant (p = 0.059) increasing trend with dose for C-reactive protein with numbers of prior radiotherapy treatments. Our results suggest that radiotherapy is associated with subsequent increased risk of certain inflammatory conditions, which is reinforced by our finding of elevated levels of C-reactive protein.

Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

A growing demand for cancer genetic services has led to suggestions for the involvement of GPs. How, and in which conditions, they can be involved, and whether there are important barriers to implementation should be ascertained.

AIM

To review the tools available, clinician attitudes and experiences, and the effects on patients of genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of papers published worldwide between 1996 and 2017.

METHOD

The MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases and grey literature were searched for entries dating from January 1996 to December 2017. Study quality was assessed with relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool checklists and a narrative synthesis of findings was conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 40 studies were included in the review. A variety of testing and screening tools were available for genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice, principally for breast, breast-ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk. GPs often reported low knowledge and confidence to engage with genetic cancer risk assessment; however, despite time pressures and concerns about confidentiality and the impact of results on family members, some recognised the potential importance relating to such a development of the GP's role. Studies found few reported benefits for patients. Concerns about negative impacts on patient anxiety and cancer worries were largely not borne out.

CONCLUSION

GPs may have a potential role in identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer that can be facilitated by family-history tools. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the implementation of population-wide screening for genetic cancer risk, especially given the competing demands of general practice.

What characterizes cancer family history collection tools? A critical literature review

Background

Many tools have been developed for the standardized collection of cancer family history (fh). However, it remains unclear which tools have the potential to help health professionals overcome traditional barriers to collecting such histories. In this review, we describe the characteristics, validation process, and performance of existing tools and appraise the extent to which those tools can support health professionals in identifying and managing at-risk individuals.

Methods

Studies were identified through searches of the medline, embase, and Cochrane central databases from October 2015 to September 2016. Articles were included if they described a cancer fh collection tool, its use, and its validation process.

Results

Based on seventy-nine articles published between February 1978 and September 2016, 62 tools were identified. Most of the tools were paper-based and designed to be self-administered by lay individuals. One quarter of the tools could automatically produce pedigrees, provide cancer-risk assessment, and deliver evidence-based recommendations. One third of the tools were validated against a standard reference for collected fh quality and cancer-risk assessment. Only 3 tools were integrated into an electronic health records system.

Conclusions

In the present review, we found no tool with characteristics that might make it an efficient clinical support for health care providers in cancer-risk identification and management. Adequately validated tools that are connected to electronic health records are needed to encourage the systematic identification of individuals at increased risk of cancer.

The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care.

METHODS

This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation.

DISCUSSION

This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016.

Online self-test identifies women at high familial breast cancer risk in population-based breast cancer screening without inducing anxiety or distress

INTRODUCTION

Identifying high familial breast cancer (FBC) risk improves detection of yet unknown BRCA1/2-mutation carriers, for whom BC risk is both highly likely and potentially preventable. We assessed whether a new online self-test could identify women at high FBC risk in population-based BC screening without inducing anxiety or distress.

METHODS

After their visit for screening mammography, women were invited by email to take an online self-test for identifying highly increased FBC risk-based on Dutch guidelines. Exclusion criteria were previously diagnosed as increased FBC risk or a personal history of BC. Anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Dutch Version), distress (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale) and BC risk perception were assessed using questionnaires, which were completed immediately before and after taking the online self-test and 2 weeks later.

RESULTS

Of the 562 women invited by email, 406 (72%) completed the online self-test while 304 also completed questionnaires (response rate 54%). After exclusion criteria, 287 (51%) were included for data analysis. Median age was 56 years (range 50-74). A high or moderate FBC risk was identified in 12 (4%) and three (1%) women, respectively. After completion of the online self-test, anxiety and BC risk perception were decreased while distress scores remained unchanged. Levels were below clinical relevance. Most women (85%) would recommend the self-test; few (3%) would not.

CONCLUSION

The online self-test identified previously unknown women at high FBC risk (4%), who may carry a BRCA1/2-mutation, without inducing anxiety or distress. We therefore recommend offering this self-test to women who attend population-based screening mammography for the first time.

Assessing family history of chronic disease in primary care: Prevalence, documentation, and appropriate screening

OBJECTIVE

To assess the proportion of primary care patients who report a family history (FH) of type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, breast cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC); assess concordance of FH information derived from the electronic medical record (EMR) compared with patient-completed health questionnaires; and assess whether appropriate screening was informed by risk based solely on FH.

DESIGN

Data from the BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) trial were used. Patients were mailed questionnaires. Baseline FH and screening data were obtained for enrolled patients from the EMR and health questionnaires.

SETTING

Ontario and Alberta.

PARTICIPANTS

Randomly selected patients from 8 family practices.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Agreement on FH between the EMR and questionnaire was determined; logistic regression was used to assess significant predictors of screening.

RESULTS

In total, 775 of 789 (98%) patients completed the health questionnaire. The mean age of participants was 52.5 years and 72% were female. A minimum of 12% of patients (range 12% to 36%) had a reported FH of 1 of 4 chronic diseases. Among patients with positive FH, the following proportions of patients had that FH recorded in the EMR compared with the questionnaire: diabetes, 24% in the EMR versus 36% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.466; coronary artery disease, 35% in the EMR versus 22% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.225; breast cancer, 21% in the EMR versus 22% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.241; and CRC, 12% in the EMR versus 14% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.510. There was moderate agreement for diabetes and CRC. The presence of FH was a significant predictor of CRC screening (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.1).

CONCLUSION

A moderate prevalence of FH was found for 4 conditions for which screening recommendations vary with risk based on FH. Having patients self-complete an FH was thought to be feasible; however, questions about FH accuracy and completeness from both self-report and EMR remain. Work is needed to determine how to facilitate the adoption of FH tools into practice as well as strategies linking familial risk to appropriate screening.Trial registration number ISRCTN07170460 (ISRCTN Registry).

Correcting for bias in the selection and validation of informative diagnostic tests

When developing a new diagnostic test for a disease, there are often multiple candidate classifiers to choose from, and it is unclear if any will offer an improvement in performance compared with current technology. A two-stage design can be used to select a promising classifier (if one exists) in stage one for definitive validation in stage two. However, estimating the true properties of the chosen classifier is complicated by the first stage selection rules. In particular, the usual maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) that combines data from both stages will be biased high. Consequently, confidence intervals and p-values flowing from the MLE will also be incorrect. Building on the results of Pepe et al. (SIM 28:762–779), we derive the most efficient conditionally unbiased estimator and exact confidence intervals for a classifier's sensitivity in a two-stage design with arbitrary selection rules; the condition being that the trial proceeds to the validation stage. We apply our estimation strategy to data from a recent family history screening tool validation study by Walter et al. (BJGP 63:393–400) and are able to identify and successfully adjust for bias in the tool's estimated sensitivity to detect those at higher risk of breast cancer. © 2015 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Psychological impact of family history risk assessment in primary care: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Routine family history risk assessment for chronic diseases could enable primary care practitioners to efficiently identify at-risk patients and promote preventive management strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate patients' understanding and responses to family history risk assessment in primary care.

METHOD

A mixed methods study set in 10 Eastern England general practices. Participants in a family history questionnaire validation study were triaged into population or increased risk for four chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer). Questionnaires completed immediately prior to the family history consultation (baseline) and 4 weeks later (follow-up) assessed the psychological impact, including State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. Semi-structured interviews explored the meaning participants gave to their personal familial disease risk.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fifty-three participants completed both baseline and follow-up questionnaires and 30 were interviewed. At follow-up, there was no increase in anxiety among either group, or differences between the groups [difference in mean change 0.02, 95% confidence interval -2.04, 2.08, P = 0.98]. There were no significant changes over time in self-rated health in either group. At follow-up, participants at increased risk (n = 153) were more likely to have recent changes to behaviour and they had stronger intentions to make changes to diet (P = 0.001), physical activity (P = 0.006) and to seek further information in the future than those at population risk (n = 300; P < 0.001). Using qualitative analysis, five themes were developed representing ways in which participants gave meaning to familial disease risk ('Being reassured', 'Controlling risk', 'Dealing with it later', 'Beyond my control', 'Disbelieving the risk'). The meanings they attributed to increased risk appeared to shape their intention to undertake behaviour change.

CONCLUSION

Routine assessment for familial risk of chronic diseases may be undertaken in primary care without causing anxiety or reducing self-rated health. Patient responses to family history risk assessment may inform promotion of preventive management strategies.

Development and validation of a family history screening questionnaire in Australian primary care

PURPOSE

We aimed to validate a family history screening questionnaire in an Australian primary care population designed to identify people at increased risk for breast, ovarian, colorectal, and prostate cancer; melanoma; ischemic heart disease; and type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We prospectively validated the questionnaire in 6 general practices in Perth, Western Australia among 526 patients aged 20 to 50 years who responded to a single invitation from their general practice. They completed the 15-item questionnaire before a reference standard 3-generation pedigree was obtained by a genetic counselor blinded to the questionnaire responses. We calculated diagnostic performance statistics for the questionnaire using the pedigree as the reference standard.

RESULTS

A combination of 9 questions had the following diagnostic performance, expressed as value (95% CI), to identify increased risk of any of the 7 conditions: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 84.6% (81.2%-88.1%), 95% sensitivity (92%-98%), and 54% specificity (48%-60%). The combination of questions to detect increased risk had sensitivity of 92% (84%-99%) and 96% (93%-99%) for the 5 and 6 conditions applicable only to men and women, respectively. The specificity was 63% (28%-52%) for men and 49% (42%-56%) for women. The positive predictive values were 67% (56%-78%) and 68% (63%-73%), and the false-positive rates were 9% (0.5%-17%) and 9% (3%-15%) for men and women, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This simple family history screening questionnaire shows good performance for identifying primary care patients at increased disease risk because of their family history. It could be used in primary care as part of a systematic approach to tailored disease prevention.

Genomics in primary care practice

This article discusses the clinical utility of genomic information for personalized preventive care of a healthy adult. Family health history is currently the most applicable genomic predictor for common, multifactorial diseases, and can also show patterns that suggest an inherited high susceptibility to a particular form of cancer or other disease. Both bloodline ancestry and shared environmental factors are important predictors for many disease states. DNA and family history analyses give information that is probabilistic, not deterministic. Therefore, family history can highlight behavioral, social, or cultural risk factors that can be modified to prevent diseases.