Quality of Family History Collection with Use of a Patient Facing Family History Assessment Tool
- UNCG Author/Contributor (non-UNCG co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)
- Vincent C. Henrich, Professor (Creator)
- Institution
- The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG )
- Web Site: http://library.uncg.edu/
Abstract: Background: Studies have shown that the quality of family health history (FHH) collection in primary care is inadequate to assess disease risk. To use FHH for risk assessment, collected data must have adequate detail. To address this issue, we developed a patient facing FHH assessment tool, MeTree. In this paper we report the content and quality of the FHH collected using MeTree.Methods: Design: A hybrid implementation-effectiveness study. Patients were recruited from 2009 to 2012.Setting: Two community primary care clinics in Greensboro, NC. Participants: All non-adopted adult English speaking patients with upcoming appointments were invited to participate.Intervention: Education about and collection of FHH with entry into MeTree. Measures: We report the proportion of pedigrees that were high-quality. High-quality pedigrees are defined as having all the following criteria: (1) three generations of relatives, (2) relatives’ lineage, (3) relatives’ gender, (4) an up-to-date FHH, (5) pertinent negatives noted, (6) age of disease onset in affected relatives, and for deceased relatives, (7) the age and (8) cause of death (Prim Care31:479–495, 2004.).Results: Enrollment: 1,184. Participant demographics: age range 18-92 (mean 58.8, SD 11.79), 56% male, and 75% white. The median pedigree size was 21 (range 8-71) and the FHH entered into MeTree resulted in a database of 27,406 individuals. FHHs collected by MeTree were found to be high quality in 99.8% (N?=?1,182/1,184) as compared to <4% at baseline. An average of 1.9 relatives per pedigree (range 0-50, SD 4.14) had no data reported. For pedigrees where at least one relative has no data (N?=?497/1,184), 4.97 relatives per pedigree (range 1-50, SD 5.44) had no data. Talking with family members before using MeTree significantly decreased the proportion of relatives with no data reported (4.98% if you talked to your relative vs. 10.85% if you did not, p-value?
Quality of Family History Collection with Use of a Patient Facing Family History Assessment Tool
PDF (Portable Document Format)
282 KB
Created on 12/11/2014
Views: 1088
Additional Information
- Publication
- BMC Family Practice, 15(1), Article Number 31
- Language: English
- Date: 2013
- Keywords
- Family history, Data quality, Patient-centered