Awareness of family health history in a predominantly young adult population
Autoři:
Sarina Madhavan aff001; Emily Bullis aff002; Rachel Myers aff003; Chris J. Zhou aff004; Elise M. Cai aff001; Anu Sharma aff001; Shreya Bhatia aff001; Lori A. Orlando aff003; Susanne B. Haga aff001
Působiště autorů:
Duke University, Trinity Arts and Sciences, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
aff001; Duke University, Initiative for Society and Society, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
aff002; Center for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
aff003; Duke University, Pratt School of Engineering, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
aff004
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie:
Research Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224283
Souhrn
Family health history (FHH) is a key predictor of health risk and is universally important in preventive care. However, patients may not be aware of the importance of FHH, and thus, may fail to accurately or completely share FHH with health providers, thereby limiting its utility. In this study, we conducted an online survey of 294 young adults and employees based at a US university setting regarding their knowledge, sharing behaviors, and perceived importance of FHH, and use of electronic clinical tools to document and update FHH. We also evaluated two educational interventions (written and video) to promote knowledge about FHH and its importance to health. We found that 93% of respondents were highly aware of their FHH, though only 39% reported collecting it and 4% using an online FHH tool. Seventy-three percent of respondents, particularly women, had shared FHH with their doctor when prompted, and fewer had shared it with family members. Participants in the video group were significantly more likely to understand the benefits of FHH than those in the written group (p = 0.02). In summary, educational resources, either video or written, will be helpful to promote FHH collection, sharing, and use of online FHH tools.
Klíčová slova:
Age groups – Graduates – Health education and awareness – Chi square tests – Patients – Surveys – Undergraduates – Young adults
Zdroje
1. Fiederling J, Ulrich CM, Hemminki K, Haug U. Consideration of family history of cancer in medical routine: a survey in the primary care setting in Germany. European journal of cancer prevention: the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP). 2014;23(3):199–205. Epub 2013/07/25. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e328364743d 23880939.
2. Lowery JT, Ahnen DJ, Schroy PC 3rd, Hampel H, Baxter N, Boland CR, et al. Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review. Cancer. 2016;122(17):2633–45. Epub 2016/06/04. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30080 27258162.
3. Mikat-Stevens NA, Larson IA, Tarini BA. Primary-care providers’ perceived barriers to integration of genetics services: a systematic review of the literature. Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 2015;17(3):169–76. Epub 2014/09/12. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.101 25210938.
4. Nippert I, Harris HJ, Julian-Reynier C, Kristoffersson U, Ten Kate LP, Anionwu E, et al. Confidence of primary care physicians in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks-a European survey in five countries-Part 1. Journal of community genetics. 2011;2(1):1–11. doi: 10.1007/s12687-010-0030-0 22109718.
5. Walter FM, Emery J. 'Coming down the line'—patients’ understanding of their family history of common chronic disease. Annals of family medicine. 2005;3(5):405–14. Epub 2005/09/29. doi: 10.1370/afm.368 16189056.
6. Walter FM, Emery J. Perceptions of family history across common diseases: a qualitative study in primary care. Family practice. 2006;23(4):472–80. Epub 2006/04/13. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cml006 16608871.
7. Rodriguez VM, Corona R, Bodurtha JN, Quillin JM. Family Ties: The Role of Family Context in Family Health History Communication About Cancer. Journal of health communication. 2016;21(3):346–55. Epub 2016/01/07. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1080328 26735646.
8. Chen LS, Li M, Talwar D, Xu L, Zhao M. Chinese Americans’ Views and Use of Family Health History: A Qualitative Study. PloS one. 2016;11(9):e0162706. Epub 2016/09/21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162706 27649411.
9. Wallace SE, Gourna EG, Nikolova V, Sheehan NA. Family tree and ancestry inference: is there a need for a ‘generational’ consent? BMC medical ethics. 2015;16(1):87. Epub 2015/12/10. doi: 10.1186/s12910-015-0080-2 26645273.
10. Welch BM, Wiley K, Pflieger L, Achiangia R, Baker K, Hughes-Halbert C, et al. Review and Comparison of Electronic Patient-Facing Family Health History Tools. Journal of genetic counseling. 2018. Epub 2018/03/08. doi: 10.1007/s10897-018-0235-7 29512060.
11. Orlando LA, Buchanan AH, Hahn SE, Christianson CA, Powell KP, Skinner CS, et al. Development and validation of a primary care-based family health history and decision support program (MeTree). N C Med J. 2013;74(4):287–96. 24044145.
12. Orlando LA, Henrich VC, Hauser ER, Wilson C, Ginsburg GS. The genomic medicine model: an integrated approach to implementation of family health history in primary care. Per Med. 2013;10(3):295–306. Epub 2013/05/01. doi: 10.2217/pme.13.20 29768748.
13. Smith ML, Beaudoin CE, Sosa ET, Pulczinski JC, Ory MG, McKyer EL. Motivations, Barriers, and Behaviors Related to Obtaining and Discussing Family Health History: A Sex-Based Comparison Among Young Adults. Frontiers in public health. 2015;3:249. Epub 2015/12/05. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00249 26636053.
14. Vanoh D, Ishak IH, Shahar S, Manaf ZA, Ali NM, Noah SAM. Development and assessment of a web-based intervention for educating older people on strategies promoting healthy cognition. Clinical interventions in aging. 2018;13:1787–98. Epub 2018/10/03. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S157324 30271134.
15. Volk RJ, Spann SJ, Cass AR, Hawley ST. Patient education for informed decision making about prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Annals of family medicine. 2003;1(1):22–8. Epub 2004/03/27. doi: 10.1370/afm.7 15043176.
16. Tuong W, Larsen ER, Armstrong AW. Videos to influence: a systematic review of effectiveness of video-based education in modifying health behaviors. Journal of behavioral medicine. 2014;37(2):218–33. Epub 2012/11/29. doi: 10.1007/s10865-012-9480-7 23188480.
17. Frank LB, Murphy ST, Chatterjee JS, Moran MB, Baezconde-Garbanati L. Telling stories, saving lives: creating narrative health messages. Health communication. 2015;30(2):154–63. Epub 2014/12/04. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2014.974126 25470440.
18. Armstrong AW, Idriss NZ, Kim RH. Effects of video-based, online education on behavioral and knowledge outcomes in sunscreen use: a randomized controlled trial. Patient education and counseling. 2011;83(2):273–7. Epub 2010/06/24. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.033 20570081.
19. Ashida S, Goodman MS, Stafford J, Lachance C, Kaphingst KA. Perceived familiarity with and importance of family health history among a medically underserved population. Journal of community genetics. 2012;3(4):285–95. Epub 2012/05/10. doi: 10.1007/s12687-012-0097-x 22569765.
20. Awareness of family health history as a risk factor for disease—United States, 2004. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2004;53(44):1044–7. Epub 2004/11/13. 15538320.
21. Lim JN, Hewison J. Do people really know what makes a family history of cancer? Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2014;17(6):818–25. Epub 2012/08/15. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00808.x 22889133.
22. Welch BM, O’Connell NS, Qanungo S, Halbert-Hughes C, Schiffman JD. Collecting Family Health History using an Online Social Network: a Nationwide Survey among Potential Users. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings AMIA Symposium. 2015;2015:1316–25. Epub 2015/01/01. 26958272.
23. McBride CM, Alford SH, Reid RJ, Larson EB, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC. Characteristics of users of online personalized genomic risk assessments: implications for physician-patient interactions. Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 2009;11(8):582–7. Epub 2009/07/17. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181b22c3a 19606049.
24. Diseases NIfDaDaK. Family Health History Quiz [May 3, 2019]. https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/risk-factors-type-2-diabetes/family-health-history-quiz.
25. Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Annals of behavioral medicine: a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine. 2012;43(1):101–16. Epub 2011/10/14. doi: 10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7 21993844.
26. Glare P, Fridman I, Ashton-James CE. Choose Your Words Wisely: The Impact of Message Framing on Patients’ Responses to Treatment Advice. International review of neurobiology. 2018;139:159–90. Epub 2018/08/28. doi: 10.1016/bs.irn.2018.07.020 30146046.
27. Parvanta CF, N D, Parvanta SA, Harner RN. Essentials of public health communication: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2010. 416 p.
28. Beadles CA, Ryanne Wu R, Himmel T, Buchanan AH, Powell KP, Hauser E, et al. Providing patient education: impact on quantity and quality of family health history collection. Familial cancer. 2014;13(2):325–32. Epub 2014/02/12. doi: 10.1007/s10689-014-9701-z 24515581.
29. Welch BM, O’Connell N, Schiffman JD. 10 years later: assessing the impact of public health efforts on the collection of family health history. American journal of medical genetics Part A. 2015;167a(9):2026–33. Epub 2015/05/06. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.37139 25939339.
30. Mudd-Martin G, Rayens MK, Lennie TA, Chung ML, Gokun Y, Wiggins AT, et al. Fatalism moderates the relationship between family history of cardiovascular disease and engagement in health-promoting behaviors among at-risk rural Kentuckians. The Journal of rural health: official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association. 2015;31(2):206–16. Epub 2014/09/25. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12094 25252080.
31. Imes CC, Lewis FM. Family history of cardiovascular disease, perceived cardiovascular disease risk, and health-related behavior: a review of the literature. The Journal of cardiovascular nursing. 2014;29(2):108–29. Epub 2013/01/17. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0b013e31827db5eb 23321782.
32. Rui P, Okeyode T. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2016 National Summary Tables [cited 2019 June 26]. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2016_namcs_web_tables.pdf.
33. Liddon L, Kingerlee R, Barry JA. Gender differences in preferences for psychological treatment, coping strategies, and triggers to help-seeking. The British journal of clinical psychology. 2018;57(1):42–58. Epub 2017/07/12. doi: 10.1111/bjc.12147 28691375.
34. Brand E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Volber R. Gender differences in mental health and substance use disorders and related healthcare services utilization. The American journal on addictions. 2019;28(1):9–15. Epub 2018/12/12. doi: 10.1111/ajad.12826 30536669.
35. Tenenbaum A, Nordeman L, Sunnerhagen KS, Gunnarsson R. Gender differences in care-seeking behavior and healthcare consumption immediately after whiplash trauma. PloS one. 2017;12(4):e0176328. Epub 2017/04/26. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176328 28441465.
36. Thompson AE, Anisimowicz Y, Miedema B, Hogg W, Wodchis WP, Aubrey-Bassler K. The influence of gender and other patient characteristics on health care-seeking behaviour: a QUALICOPC study. BMC family practice. 2016;17:38. Epub 2016/04/03. doi: 10.1186/s12875-016-0440-0 27036116.
37. Orlando LA, Wu RR, Beadles C, Himmel T, Buchanan AH, Powell KP, et al. Implementing family health history risk stratification in primary care: impact of guideline criteria on populations and resource demand. American journal of medical genetics Part C, Seminars in medical genetics. 2014;166C(1):24–33. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31388 24616329.
38. Vogel RI, Niendorf K, Petzel S, Lee H, Teoh D, Blaes AH, et al. A patient-centered mobile health application to motivate use of genetic counseling among women with ovarian cancer: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Gynecologic oncology. 2019;153(1):100–7. Epub 2019/02/06. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.01.019 30718125.
Článek vyšel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 10
- S diagnostikou Parkinsonovy nemoci může nově pomoci AI nástroj pro hodnocení mrkacího reflexu
- Je libo čepici místo mozkového implantátu?
- Pomůže v budoucnu s triáží na pohotovostech umělá inteligence?
- AI může chirurgům poskytnout cenná data i zpětnou vazbu v reálném čase
- Nová metoda odlišení nádorové tkáně může zpřesnit resekci glioblastomů
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Correction: Low dose naltrexone: Effects on medication in rheumatoid and seropositive arthritis. A nationwide register-based controlled quasi-experimental before-after study
- Combining CDK4/6 inhibitors ribociclib and palbociclib with cytotoxic agents does not enhance cytotoxicity
- Experimentally validated simulation of coronary stents considering different dogboning ratios and asymmetric stent positioning
- Risk factors associated with IgA vasculitis with nephritis (Henoch–Schönlein purpura nephritis) progressing to unfavorable outcomes: A meta-analysis
Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova
Všechny kurzy