Family history is one the greatest risk factors for disease and one of the most important informational tools in medical genetics for the purpose of diagnosis, risk assessment, prevention and treatment. However, research is needed on the comparability of different methods of cancer family history assessment and the influence of psychosocial factors in family history reports. The purpose of this study was to determine if individuals had discrepancies between written and interview reports of cancer family history and the role of psychosocial factors in these discrepancies. Oncology patients (n=104) were administered a survey to assess psychosocial factors (i.e., information-seeking, worry, perceived risk, and health literacy) and were asked to provide family history in a written and an interview form. Randomization determined which form individuals received first. No differences in the amount of missing data or the amount of unspecified data were noted between the written and interview method. Psychosocial factors did not differentiate between those who had discrepancies in family history reports and those who did not have discrepancies in family history reports; although there was a trend for those with lower literacy and those who were blunters to be more discrepant on type of cancer diagnosis. In sum, this preliminary study indicates that written and interview methods of family history assessment for first degree relatives may be used interchangeably. The ability to use written methods will facilitate collection of basic family history information in the oncology clinic.
"information, and reported discussing their FHC with their physician also spoke with relatives about FHC at higher rates, while participants with lower combined household incomes were less likely to have discussed family history of cancer with their relatives. In general, these findings are consistent with studies that have shown that men with higher income, educational attainment, and stronger patient-provider relationships are more likely to discuss and utilize FHC information (Griffith, 2008; Kelly, 2007; Zlot, Silvey, Newell, Coates, & Leman, 2012). In an effort to move FHC research and practice on African American men forward, we will discuss our findings in the context of three models, the health behaviorsoutcomes model, the health information-access model, and the socio-demographic model. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Family history of cancer is an important risk factor for the disease, and communicating with family and physicians about family history is critical to cancer risk assessment. This study examined cancer risk communication with family and physicians.
A telephone interview was administered to randomly selected participants (n=217) from 5 urban, lower-income communities in 2006 and 2007. A large proportion of the population were minorities and of lower socio-economic status (47% African American, 43% incomes <$25,000). Most (76%) believed family history was important, and approximately half talked to their family (50%) or their physician (49%) about their cancer risk.
Respondents were equally likely as family members to initiate discussions about cancer risk, but respondents were more likely to initiate discussions with physicians. Logistic regression models were fit to talk to family, talk to physician, and perceived risk. In multivariable analysis, higher income and greater worry were associated with talking to family about risk, and higher income was associated with talking to physician about risk. Gender, family history and worry were associated with greater perceived risk.
Efforts to decrease income barriers to cancer risk communication are needed.
Preventive Medicine 04/2009; 48(4):392-6. DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.01.009 · 3.09 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Systematic collection of family history is a prerequisite for identifying genetic risk. This study reviewed tools applicable to the primary care assessment of family history of breast, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central were searched for publications. All primary study designs were included. Characteristics of the studies, the family history collection tools, and the setting were evaluated. Of 40 eligible studies, 18 relevant family history tools were identified, with 11 developed for use in primary care. Most collected information on more than one cancer and on affected relatives used self-administered questionnaires and paper-based formats. Eleven tools had been evaluated relative to current practice, demonstrating 46-78% improvement in data recording over family history recording in patient charts and 75-100% agreement with structured genetic interviews. Few tools have been developed specifically for primary care settings. The few that have been evaluated performed well. The very limited evidence, which depends in part on extrapolation from studies in settings other than primary care, suggests that systematic tools may add significant family health information compared with current primary care practice. The effect of their use on health outcomes has not been evaluated.
Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 07/2009; 11(7):495-506. DOI:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181a7e8e0 · 7.33 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.