Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 10;20(1):22.
doi: 10.1186/s13053-022-00231-3.

Literacy-adapted, electronic family history assessment for genetics referral in primary care: patient user insights from qualitative interviews

Kathleen F Mittendorf  1 , Hannah S Lewis  2 , Devan M Duenas  2 , Donna J Eubanks  3 , Marian J Gilmore  4 , Katrina A B Goddard  5 , Galen Joseph  6 , Tia L Kauffman  3 , Stephanie A Kraft  2   7 , Nangel M Lindberg  3 , Ana A Reyes  4 , Elizabeth Shuster  3 , Sapna Syngal  8   9   10 , Chinedu Ukaegbu  8   9 , Jamilyn M Zepp  4 , Benjamin S Wilfond  2   7 , Kathryn M Porter  11
Affiliations

Literacy-adapted, electronic family history assessment for genetics referral in primary care: patient user insights from qualitative interviews

Kathleen F Mittendorf et al. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. .

Abstract

Background: Risk assessment for hereditary cancer syndromes is recommended in primary care, but family history is rarely collected in enough detail to facilitate risk assessment and referral - a roadblock that disproportionately impacts individuals with healthcare access barriers. We sought to qualitatively assess a literacy-adapted, electronic patient-facing family history tool developed for use in diverse, underserved patient populations recruited in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study.

Methods: Interview participants were recruited from a subpopulation of CHARM participants who experienced barriers to tool use in terms of spending a longer time to complete the tool, having incomplete attempts, and/or providing inaccurate family history in comparison to a genetic counselor-collected standard. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants about barriers and facilitators to tool use and overall tool acceptability; interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded based on a codebook developed using inductive techniques, and coded excerpts were reviewed to identify overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators to family history self-assessment and acceptability of the study tool.

Results: Interviewees endorsed the tool as easy to navigate and understand. However, they described barriers related to family history information, literacy and language, and certain tool functions. Participants offered concrete, easy-to-implement solutions to each barrier. Despite experience barriers to use of the tool, most participants indicated that electronic family history self-assessment was acceptable or preferable in comparison to clinician-collected family history.

Conclusions: Even for participants who experienced barriers to tool use, family history self-assessment was considered an acceptable alternative to clinician-collected family history. Barriers experienced could be overcome with minor adaptations to the current family history tool.

Trial registration: This study is a sub-study of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) trial, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03426878. Registered 8 February 2018.

Keywords: Digital health; Genetics; Hereditary cancer risk assessment; Underserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

KFM declares institutional funding from GE Healthcare for unrelated research. PREMM® is a registered trademark of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI). SS receives inventor portion of royalties from licensing revenues paid to DFCI. For unrelated work, SS has previously received consulting fees from Myriad Genetics, Inc. and payment for expert testimony from Glaxo-Smith Kline, Inc.

References

    1. Garber JE, Offit K. Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(2):276–292. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.10.042. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nagy R, Sweet K, Eng C. Highly penetrant hereditary cancer syndromes. Oncogene. 2004;23(38):6445–6470. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207714. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Petrucelli N, Daly MB, Pal T. BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. 1998 [Updated 2022 May 26]. In: Adam MP, Mirzaa GM, Pagon RA, et al., editors. GeneReviews®. Seattle: University of Washington; 1993–2022. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1247/. - PubMed
    1. Randall LM, Pothuri B. The genetic prediction of risk for gynecologic cancers. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;141(1):10–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.03.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rubenstein JH, Enns R, Heidelbaugh J, Barkun A. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on the diagnosis and management of lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(3):777–782. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.07.036. - DOI - PubMed

Associated data