'Start the conversation': the New South Wales (Australia) family health history campaign

General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in the provision of clinical genetic services. This paper aims to review existing literature on GPs' experience, attitudes and needs towards clinical genetic services.

DESIGN

A systematic mixed studies review of papers published between 2010 and 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The inclusion criterion was peer-reviewed articles in English and related to GPs' experience, views and needs on any genetic testing.

INFORMATION SOURCES

The PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using Mesh terms, Boolean and wildcards combinations to identify peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Study quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. A thematic meta-synthesis was conducted on the final sample of selected articles to identify key themes.

RESULTS

A total of 62 articles were included in the review. Uncertainty over GPs' role in providing genetic services were attributed by the lack of confidence and time constraints and rarity of cases may further exacerbate their reluctance to shoulder an expanded role in clinical genetics. Although educational interventions were found to increasing GPs' knowledge and confidence to carry out genetic tasks, varied interest on genetic testing and preference for a shared care model with other genetic health professionals have resulted in minimal translation to clinical adoption.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the need for deeper exploration of GPs' varied experience and attitudes towards clinical genetic services to better facilitate targeted intervention in the adoption of clinical genetics.

Family Health History-Based Interventions: A Systematic Review of the Literature

CONTEXT

National efforts have advocated for the need to deliver family health history-based interventions to the lay public for more than a decade. Yet, the numbers, characteristics, and outcomes of such interventions are unknown. This first-of-its-kind systematic literature review examines the characteristics and effectiveness of the existing family health history-based interventions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The research team systematically searched peer-reviewed articles published between January 2003 and July 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. These studies assessed various behaviors, including family health history collection/communication with family members, family health history communication with healthcare providers, healthy diet adoption, physical activity level, uptake of medical screenings and genetic tests, and being proactive in healthcare matters. The average methodologic quality score of the studies was 9.9 (SD=1.6) of a theoretical range from 2 to 16.

CONCLUSIONS

Many family health history-based interventions exist to examine a variety of behaviors. Yet, there is room for improvement in methodology because few studies used a randomized or quasi-experimental design. In addition, most included studies did not report objective or longer-term outcome data to examine the effectiveness of family health history-based interventions.

The Influence of Family Communication Patterns on the Processing of Messages to Increase Family Health History Seeking Intentions

The current study extends family communication patterns (FCP) research to assess how family communication schemata (conversation and conformity orientation dimensions) influence systematic processing of health appeals intended to persuade individuals to seek family health history information, emphasizing an updated conceptualization of family conformity (i.e., the expanded conformity orientation scale). Our results suggest that conversation orientation and the conformity dimension of parental control are the primary drivers of systematic processing of family health history messages. Systematic processing, in turn, was significantly associated with more positive attitudes and greater intentions to seek health information from family members. Our results suggest family communication patterns may impact individual engagement with family health history campaign messages, thus campaign designers may want to consider how best to tailor messages to match family communication characteristics.

The context of collecting family health history: examining definitions of family and family communication about health among African American women

Public health initiatives encourage the public to discuss and record family health history information, which can inform prevention and screening for a variety of conditions. Most research on family health history discussion and collection, however, has predominantly involved White participants and has not considered lay definitions of family or family communication patterns about health. This qualitative study of 32 African American women-16 with a history of cancer-analyzed participants' definitions of family, family communication about health, and collection of family health history information. Family was defined by biological relatedness, social ties, interactions, and proximity. Several participants noted using different definitions of family for different purposes (e.g., biomedical vs. social). Health discussions took place between and within generations and were influenced by structural relationships (e.g., sister) and characteristics of family members (e.g., trustworthiness). Participants described managing tensions between sharing health information and protecting privacy, especially related to generational differences in sharing information, fear of familial conflict or gossip, and denial (sometimes described as refusal to "own" or "claim" a disease). Few participants reported that anyone in their family kept formal family health history records. Results suggest family health history initiatives should address family tensions and communication patterns that affect discussion and collection of family health history information.

Do people really know what makes a family history of cancer?

BACKGROUND

Family history is often referred to as a family tree in casual everyday conservations, but it carries a different connotation in medicine. This study is the first to investigate people's understanding of 'family medical history' and the concept of 'family' in the context of inherited cancer.

METHODS

Three hundred and nine staff at the Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds completed an online web survey.

RESULTS

Not all respondents understood or knew what makes a family history of cancer. Only 54% knew exactly the type of information required to make a family history. Apart from blood relatives, adopted and step-siblings, step parents, in-laws, spouses, friends and colleagues were also named as 'family' for family history taking. Personal experience of living with cancer and academic qualification were not significant in influencing knowledge of family history.

CONCLUSIONS

There is misunderstanding and poor knowledge of family history of cancer and the type of information required to make a family history even in a sample of people teaching and researching medicine and health issues. Public understanding of the value of family medical history in cancer prevention and management is important if informed clinical decisions and appropriate health care are to be delivered.

"You don't have to keep everything on paper": African American women's use of family health history tools

Little is known about African American women's collection of family health history (FHH) information and use of FHH tools. Most FHH research has investigated tools that use a biomedical paradigm, but other kinds of tools, such as those that include information about family social context, have been developed for use in diverse populations. Using mixed methods, we interviewed 32 African American women about behavioral steps to collecting FHH, family communication about health, and reactions to a biomedical FHH tool. Participants chose one of two FHH tools to take home. A follow-up call three weeks later assessed tool use. Many participants expressed support for writing down FHH information, but at baseline few had done so; most participants who had collected FHH information had done so verbally. Participants reacted positively to the biomedical FHH tool used during the interview, with many saying it allowed them to see patterns in their FHH. At follow-up, 67 % reported using their FHH tool, primarily to promote discussion among family members; only 32 % used the tool to write down FHH information. Although participants thought collecting FHH information was important and had positive reactions to both tools, the majority did not use the tools to write down information and instead collected FHH informally. These findings underline the importance of separating the components of FHH collection behaviors to analyze the steps used in FHH creation. Practitioners should consider additional methods of encouraging patients to create written FHHs in order to share the information with health care providers.

Family history and risk of breast cancer: nurses' health study

Family history of cancer remains underused in general clinical practice. We assess age at diagnosis and the role of family history in risk of breast cancer. Prospective follow-up of nurses' health study participants from 1980 to 2006. Updated assessment of family history in mother and sister including age at diagnosis. We used youngest age at diagnosis for family member when classifying risk. We confirmed 4327 incident invasive breast cancers confirmed. Breast cancer incidence models fitted to women with and without family history to assess variation in the risk for established risk factors. Compared to women with no family history those whose mother was diagnosed before age 50 had an adjusted relative risk of 1.69 (95% CI 1.39-2.05) and those with mother diagnosed at 50 or older had a relative risk of 1.37 (1.22-1.53). Sister history was associated with increased relative risk; 1.66 (1.38-1.99) for those with sister history before age 50 and 1.52 (1.29-1.77) for those with sister diagnosed at age 50 or older. Women with either mother or sister diagnosed before age 50 had a relative risk of 1.70 (1.48-1.95) significantly higher than those with diagnosis at age 50 or older (RR = 1.30; (1.27-1.54), P = 0.016). The magnitude of risk associated with established reproductive and lifestyle risk factors did not differ significantly between women with and those without family history with the exception of risk after bilateral oophorectomy in which setting women with family history had greater reduction in risk of subsequent breast cancer. Women with a family member diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 had increased risk of breast cancer compared to women with family members diagnosed at older ages. Consistent findings for risk factors regardless of family history adds to robust evidence for risk identification and risk stratification in clinical settings where prevention strategies will apply equally to women with and without family history.