Comparison of a Cancer Family History Collection and Risk Assessment Tool - ItRunsInMyFamily - with Risk Assessment by Health-Care Professionals.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY Public Health Genomics Pub Date : 2021-12-06 DOI:10.1159/000520001
Jordon B Ritchie, Brandon M Welch, Caitlin G Allen, Lewis J Frey, Heath Morrison, Joshua D Schiffman, Alexander V Alekseyenko, Brian Dean, Chanita Hughes Halbert, Cecelia Bellcross
{"title":"Comparison of a Cancer Family History Collection and Risk Assessment Tool - ItRunsInMyFamily - with Risk Assessment by Health-Care Professionals.","authors":"Jordon B Ritchie, Brandon M Welch, Caitlin G Allen, Lewis J Frey, Heath Morrison, Joshua D Schiffman, Alexander V Alekseyenko, Brian Dean, Chanita Hughes Halbert, Cecelia Bellcross","doi":"10.1159/000520001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists lack time and training to appropriately identify patients at increased risk for hereditary cancer using family health history (FHx) and clinical practice guideline (CPG) criteria. We built a tool, \"ItRunsInMyFamily\" (ItRuns) that automates FHx collection and risk assessment using CPGs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ItRuns by measuring the level of concordance in referral patterns for genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT) between the CPGs as applied by the tool and genetic counselors (GCs), in comparison to oncologists and PCPs. The extent to which non-GCs are discordant with CPGs is a gap that health information technology, such as ItRuns, can help close to facilitate the identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We curated 18 FHx cases and surveyed GCs and non-GCs (oncologists and PCPs) to assess concordance with ItRuns CPG criteria for referring patients for GC/GT. Percent agreement was used to describe concordance, and logistic regression to compare providers and the tool's concordance with CPG criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GCs had the best overall concordance with the CPGs used in ItRuns at 82.2%, followed by oncologists with 66.0% and PCPs with 60.6%. GCs were significantly more likely to concur with CPGs (OR = 4.04, 95% CI = 3.35-4.89) than non-GCs. All providers had higher concordance with CPGs for FHx cases that met the criteria for genetic counseling/testing than for cases that did not.</p><p><strong>Discussion/conclusion: </strong>The risk assessment provided by ItRuns was highly concordant with that of GC's, particularly for at-risk individuals. The use of such technology-based tools improves efficiency and can lead to greater numbers of at-risk individuals accessing genetic counseling, testing, and mutation-based interventions to improve health.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9167897/pdf/nihms-1752753.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000520001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists lack time and training to appropriately identify patients at increased risk for hereditary cancer using family health history (FHx) and clinical practice guideline (CPG) criteria. We built a tool, "ItRunsInMyFamily" (ItRuns) that automates FHx collection and risk assessment using CPGs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ItRuns by measuring the level of concordance in referral patterns for genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT) between the CPGs as applied by the tool and genetic counselors (GCs), in comparison to oncologists and PCPs. The extent to which non-GCs are discordant with CPGs is a gap that health information technology, such as ItRuns, can help close to facilitate the identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer.

Methods: We curated 18 FHx cases and surveyed GCs and non-GCs (oncologists and PCPs) to assess concordance with ItRuns CPG criteria for referring patients for GC/GT. Percent agreement was used to describe concordance, and logistic regression to compare providers and the tool's concordance with CPG criteria.

Results: GCs had the best overall concordance with the CPGs used in ItRuns at 82.2%, followed by oncologists with 66.0% and PCPs with 60.6%. GCs were significantly more likely to concur with CPGs (OR = 4.04, 95% CI = 3.35-4.89) than non-GCs. All providers had higher concordance with CPGs for FHx cases that met the criteria for genetic counseling/testing than for cases that did not.

Discussion/conclusion: The risk assessment provided by ItRuns was highly concordant with that of GC's, particularly for at-risk individuals. The use of such technology-based tools improves efficiency and can lead to greater numbers of at-risk individuals accessing genetic counseling, testing, and mutation-based interventions to improve health.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
癌症家族史收集和风险评估工具 - ItRunsInMyFamily - 与医护人员风险评估的比较。
导言:初级保健提供者(PCP)和肿瘤学家缺乏时间和培训,无法利用家族健康史(FHx)和临床实践指南(CPG)标准适当识别遗传性癌症风险增加的患者。我们开发了一款名为 "ItRunsInMyFamily"(ItRuns)的工具,可自动收集家族健康史并使用 CPG 进行风险评估。本研究的目的是通过测量遗传咨询/检测(GC/GT)转诊模式的一致性水平,评估该工具与遗传咨询师(GCs)在应用 CPGs 时与肿瘤学家和初级保健医生的对比情况。非遗传咨询师与 CPGs 不一致的程度是健康信息技术(如 ItRuns)可以帮助弥补的一个缺口,以促进遗传性癌症高危人群的识别:我们收集了 18 个 FHx 病例,并对遗传性癌症患者和非遗传性癌症患者(肿瘤学家和初级保健医生)进行了调查,以评估转诊患者接受遗传性癌症/转基因治疗时与 ItRuns CPG 标准的一致性。采用一致百分比来描述一致性,并通过逻辑回归来比较医疗服务提供者和工具与 CPG 标准的一致性:结果:全科医生与 ItRuns 中使用的 CPGs 的总体吻合度最高,达到 82.2%,其次是肿瘤科医生(66.0%)和初级保健医生(60.6%)。全科医生与 CPGs 的一致性明显高于非全科医生(OR = 4.04,95% CI = 3.35-4.89)。对于符合遗传咨询/检测标准的 FHx 病例,所有医疗服务提供者与 CPGs 的一致性均高于不符合标准的病例:ItRuns 提供的风险评估与 GC 的评估高度一致,尤其是对高危人群。使用这种基于技术的工具提高了效率,可使更多的高危人群获得遗传咨询、检测和基于基因突变的干预,从而改善健康状况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Genomics
Public Health Genomics 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Public Health Genomics'' is the leading international journal focusing on the timely translation of genome-based knowledge and technologies into public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole. This peer-reviewed journal is a bimonthly forum featuring original papers, reviews, short communications, and policy statements. It is supplemented by topic-specific issues providing a comprehensive, holistic and ''all-inclusive'' picture of the chosen subject. Multidisciplinary in scope, it combines theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplines, notably public health, molecular and medical sciences, the humanities and social sciences. In so doing, it also takes into account rapid scientific advances from fields such as systems biology, microbiomics, epigenomics or information and communication technologies as well as the hight potential of ''big data'' for public health.
期刊最新文献
"The Biggest Struggle:" Navigating Trust and Uncertainty in Genetic Variant Interpretation. "Should I let them know I have this?": Multifaceted genetic discrimination and limited awareness of legal protections amongst individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes. Who's on your genomics research team? Consumer experiences from Australia. Development and Pilot Testing of Evidence-Based Interventions to Improve Adherence after Receiving a Genetic Result. Co-creating the experience of consent for newborn genome sequencing (The Generation Study).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1