Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: 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.
SUBMITTER: Mirosevic S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9090347 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review.
Miroševič Špela Š Klemenc-Ketiš Zalika Z Peterlin Borut B
The European journal of general practice 20221201 1
<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objectives</h4>This review explores the FH tools currently available for PC and evaluates their clinical performance.<h4>Methods</h4>Five databases were systematically searched until May 2021. Identified tools were evaluated on the following criteria: time-to-complete, integration with electr ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTo better manage patients with a wide range of mental health problems, general practitioners would benefit from diagnostically accurate and time-efficient screening tools that comprehensively assess mental illness. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to identify screening tools that either take a multiple-mental disorder or a transdiagnostic approach. As primary and secondary outcomes, diagnostic accuracy and time efficiency were investigated.MethodsThe data bases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Psyndex and PsycINFO were searched. Studies reporting on multiple-mental disorder or transdiagnostic screening tools used in primary care with adult patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value served as measures of diagnostic accuracy. Time efficiency was evaluated by the number of items of a screening tool and the time required for its completion and evaluation.ResultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of screening tools assessed multiple mental disorders separately. A sub-group of screening tools took a transdiagnostic approach by examining the spectrum of mood, anxiety and stress-related disorders. One screening tool used internalised, cognitive/somatic and externalised dysfunction as transdiagnostic domains of mental illness. Mostly, a sufficient sensitivity and specificity was reported. All screening tools were found to be time efficient.ConclusionThe eleven identified screening tools can support general practitioners to identify patients with mental health problems. However, there was great heterogeneity concerning their diagnostic scope of psychopathology. Further screening tools for primary care are needed that target broad constructs of mental illness, such as transdiagnostic factors or personality dysfunction.
| S-EPMC11500526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough most neoplasms result from complex interactions between the individual's genome and the environment, a percentage of cases is particularly due to inherited alterations that confer a greater predisposition to the development of tumors. Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes have a high psychosocial and economic burden, in addition to being characterized by an increased risk for one or more types of cancer, onset of malignancy at a young age, high risk of secondary malignancies, and occurrence in successive generations of the family. Personal and family history, as well as pedigree, may be useful resources to estimate the risk for developing cancer, especially in Primary Health Care settings.ObjectiveTo identify and evaluate the evidence regarding the impact of using family history as a genomic technology for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes screening at Primary Health Care.MethodsThis systematic review protocol was elaborated in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). We will include all observational as well as experimental study designs published up to end of July 2022, and studies covering the impact of family history on screening for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes in primary health care. Qualitative studies, as well as guidelines, reviews, and studies undertaken in hospitals, outpatient clinic, or medical environments will be excluded. Five databases will be searched, including MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and LILACS. Additional sources will also be retrieved, including Clinical trials.gov-NIH, The British Library, and Google Scholar. No restriction to language or date will be employed in the search strategy. Three investigators will select studies independently, perform data extraction, and conduct the critical appraisal of the risk of bias and overall quality of the selected studies according to their designs. Regarding data synthesis, the study characteristics will be summarized and presented in tables and results will be presented according to the study design. A qualitative synthesis of data will also be provided in this systematic review.DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this systematic review will be the first to identify and critically assess evidence regarding the impact of using family history as a genomic technology for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes screening in Primary Health Care settings worldwide. This study is expected to provide consistent evidence that will aid the primary care decision-makers regarding hereditary cancer screening, thus helping individuals and families at risk for cancer.Prospero registration numberCRD42020166211.
| S-EPMC9312395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsIn our current healthcare situation, burden on healthcare services is increasing, with higher costs and increased utilization. Structured population health management has been developed as an approach to balance quality with increasing costs. This approach identifies sub-populations with comparable health risks, to tailor interventions for those that will benefit the most. Worldwide, the use of routine healthcare data extracted from electronic health registries for risk stratification approaches is increasing. Different risk stratification tools are used on different levels of the healthcare continuum. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to explore which tools are used in primary healthcare settings and assess their performance.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review of studies applying risk stratification tools with health outcomes in primary care populations. Studies in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries published in English-language journals were included. Search engines were utilized with keywords, for example, "primary care," "risk stratification," and "model." Risk stratification tools were compared based on different measures: area under the curve (AUC) and C-statistics for dichotomous outcomes and R 2 for continuous outcomes.ResultsThe search provided 4718 articles. Specific election criteria such as primary care populations, generic health utilization outcomes, and routinely collected data sources identified 61 articles, reporting on 31 different models. The three most frequently applied models were the Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG, n = 23), the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI, n = 19), and the Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC, n = 7). Most AUC and C-statistic values were above 0.7, with ACG showing slightly improved scores compared with the CCI and HCC (typically between 0.6 and 0.7).ConclusionBased on statistical performance, the validity of the ACG was the highest, followed by the CCI and the HCC. The ACG also appeared to be the most flexible, with the use of different international coding systems and measuring a wider variety of health outcomes.
| S-EPMC8299990 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Family health history (FHx) is one of the most important pieces of information available to help genetic counselors and other clinicians identify risk and prevent disease. Unfortunately, the collection of FHx from patients is often too time consuming to be done during a clinical visit. Fortunately, there are many electronic FHx tools designed to help patients gather and organize their own FHx information prior to a clinic visit. We conducted a review and analysis of electronic FHx tools to better understand what tools are available, to compare and contrast to each other, to highlight features of various tools, and to provide a foundation for future evaluation and comparisons across FHx tools. Through our analysis, we included and abstracted 17 patient-facing electronic FHx tools and explored these tools around four axes: organization information, family history collection and display, clinical data collected, and clinical workflow integration. We found a large number of differences among FHx tools, with no two the same. This paper provides a useful review for health care providers, researchers, and patient advocates interested in understanding the differences among the available patient-facing electronic FHx tools.
| S-EPMC5861014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite increasing evidence of the benefits of early access to palliative care, many patients do not receive palliative care in a timely manner. A systematic approach in primary care can facilitate earlier identification of patients with potential palliative care needs and prompt further assessment.AimTo identify existing screening tools for identification of patients with advanced progressive diseases who are likely to have palliative care needs in primary healthcare and evaluate their accuracy.DesignSystematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42019111568).Data sourcesCochrane, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 2019.ResultsFrom 4,127 unique articles screened, 25 reported the use or development of 10 screening tools. Most tools use prediction of death and/or deterioration as a proxy for the identification of people with potential palliative care needs. The tools are based on a wide range of general and disease-specific indicators. The accuracy of five tools was assessed in eight studies; these tools differed significantly in their ability to identify patients with potential palliative care needs with sensitivity ranging from 3% to 94% and specificity ranging from 26% to 99%.ConclusionThe ability of current screening tools to identify patients with advanced progressive diseases who are likely to have palliative care needs in primary care is limited. Further research is needed to identify standardised screening processes that are based not only on predicting mortality and deterioration but also on anticipating the palliative care needs and predicting the rate and course of functional decline. This would prompt a comprehensive assessment to identify and meet their needs on time.
| S-EPMC7388141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeFamily history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a known risk factor for CRC and encompasses both genetic and shared environmental risks.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to estimate the impact of family history on the natural history of CRC and adherence to screening.ResultsWe found high heterogeneity in family-history definitions, the most common definition being one or more first-degree relatives. The prevalence of family history may be lower than the commonly cited 10%, and confirms evidence for increasing levels of risk associated with increasing family-history burden. There is evidence for higher prevalence of adenomas and of multiple adenomas in people with family history of CRC but no evidence for differential adenoma location or adenoma progression by family history. Limited data regarding the natural history of CRC by family history suggest a differential age or stage at cancer diagnosis and mixed evidence with respect to tumor location. Adherence to recommended colonoscopy screening was higher in people with a family history of CRC.ConclusionStratification based on polygenic and/or multifactorial risk assessment may mature to the point of displacing family history-based approaches, but for the foreseeable future, family history may remain a valuable clinical tool for identifying individuals at increased risk for CRC.
| S-EPMC4955831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceGenetic and environmental factors are thought to contribute to cluster headache, and cluster headache can affect multiple members of a family. A thorough understanding of its inheritance is critical to understanding the pathogenesis of this debilitating disease.ObjectiveTo systematically review family history rates and inheritance patterns of cluster headache.Evidence reviewA systematic review was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Search criteria were created by a librarian. Articles published between 1985 and 2016, after the publication date of a large review in 1985, were analyzed independently by 2 neurologists to identify family history rates and pedigrees. Pedigrees were analyzed by a genetic counselor.FindingsA total of 1995 studies were found (1988 through the search criteria and 7 through other means). Forty articles met inclusion criteria: 22 large cohort studies, 1 twin-based study, and 17 case reports or small case series. Across the 22 large cohort studies, the positive family history rate of cluster headache varied between 0% and 22%, with a median of 8.2%. The largest 5 studies, of 1134, 785, 693, 609, and 500 probands each, had a positive family history in 18.0% (numerator not provided), 5.1% (40 of 785 cases), 10.0% (numerator not provided), 2.0% (12 of 609 cases), and 11.2% (56 of 500 cases), respectively. No meta-analysis was performed, given differences in methodologies. Separately, 1 twin-based study examined 37 twin pairs and reported a concordance rate of 5.4% (2 pairs). Finally, 67 pedigrees were identified. Most pedigrees (46 of 67 [69%]) were consistent with an autosomal dominant pattern, but 19 of 67 (28%) were consistent with an autosomal recessive inheritance pattern; 10 pedigrees of probable or atypical cluster headache were identified, and all were consistent with an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern. The sex ratio for cluster headache in identified pedigrees was 1.39 (103:74) in affected men and boys compared with affected women and girls, which is lower than that of the general cluster headache population.Conclusions and relevanceCluster headache is an inherited disorder in a subset of families and is associated with multiple hereditary patterns. There is an unexpectedly high preponderance of women and girls with familial cluster headache; genetic subanalyses limited to female participants are necessary to further explore this observation, because these data are otherwise masked by the higher numbers of male participants with cluster headache. Overall, this systematic review supports the notion that familial cluster headache is likely the result of multiple susceptibility genes as well as environmental factors.
| S-EPMC7644512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Patient safety in primary care is a developing field with an embryonic but evolving evidence base. This narrative review aims to identify tools that can be used by family practitioners as part of a patient safety toolkit to improve the safety of the care and services provided by their practices. METHODS: Searches were performed in 6 healthcare databases in 2011 using 3 search stems; location (primary care), patient safety synonyms and outcome measure synonyms. Two reviewers analysed the results using a numerical and thematic analyses. Extensive grey literature exploration was also conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 114 Tools were identified with 26 accrued from grey literature. Most published literature originated from the USA (41%) and the UK (23%) within the last 10 years. Most of the literature addresses the themes of medication error (55%) followed by safety climate (8%) and adverse event reporting (8%). Minor themes included; informatics (4.5%) patient role (3%) and general measures to correct error (5%). The primary/secondary care interface is well described (5%) but few specific tools for primary care exist. Diagnostic error and results handling appear infrequently (<1% of total literature) despite their relative importance. The remainder of literature (11%) related to referrals, Out-Of-Hours (OOH) care, telephone care, organisational issues, mortality and clerical error. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified tools and indicators that are available for use in family practice to measure patient safety, which is crucial to improve safety and design a patient safety toolkit. However, many of the tools have yet to be used in quality improvement strategies and cycles such as plan-do-study-act (PDSA) so there is a dearth of evidence of their utility in improving as opposed to measuring and highlighting safety issues. The lack of focus on diagnostics, systems safety and results handling provide direction and priorities for future research.
| S-EPMC4288623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFamily history (FH) assessment is useful in identifying and managing patients at increased risk for cancer. This study assessed reported FH quality and associations with physician perceptions.MethodsPrimary care physicians practicing in two northeastern U.S. states were surveyed (n = 880; 70% response rate). Outcome measures of FH quality were extent of FH taken and ascertaining age at cancer diagnosis for affected family members. Predictors of quality measured in this survey included: perceived advantages and disadvantages of collecting FH information, knowledge of management options, access to supportive resources, and confidence in ability to interpret FH.ResultsReported collection of information regarding second degree blood relatives and age of diagnosis among affected relatives was low. All hypothesized predictors were associated with measures of FH quality, but not all were consistent independent predictors. Perceived advantages of taking a family history, access to supportive resources, and confidence in ability to identify and manage higher risk patients were independent predictors of both FH quality measures. Perceived disadvantages of taking a family history was independently associated one measure of FH quality. Knowledge of management options was not independently associated with either quality measure.ConclusionsModifiable perception and resource factors were independently associated with quality of FH taking in a large and diverse sample of primary care physicians. Improving FH quality for identification of high risk individuals will require multi-faceted interventions.
| S-EPMC2898682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Existing culturally competent models of care and guidelines are directing the responses of healthcare providers to culturally diverse populations. However, there is a lack of research into how or if these models and guidelines can be translated into the primary care context of family violence. This systematic review aimed to synthesise published evidence to explore the components of culturally competent primary care response for women experiencing family violence. We define family violence as any form of abuse perpetrated against a woman either by her intimate partner or the partner's family member. We included English language peer-reviewed articles and grey literature items that explored interactions between culturally diverse women experiencing family violence and their primary care clinicians. We refer women of migrant and refugee backgrounds, Indigenous women and women of ethnic minorities collectively as culturally diverse women. We searched eight electronic databases and websites of Australia-based relevant organisations. Following a critical interpretive synthesis of 28 eligible peer-reviewed articles and 16 grey literature items, we generated 11 components of culturally competent family violence related primary care. In the discussion section, we interpreted our findings using an ecological framework to develop a model of care that provides insights into how components at the primary care practice level should coordinate with components at the primary care provider level to enable efficient support to these women experiencing family violence. The review findings are applicable beyond the family violence primary care context.
| S-EPMC10009494 | biostudies-literature