Cited by 105Electronic Health Records SystemsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionBRCA gene mutations in cancer

Family health history: underused for actionable risk assessment

Open access
Ginsburg, Geoffrey S, Wu, R Ryanne, Orlando, Lori A·2019·The Lancet

Abstract

Family health history (FHH) is the most useful means of assessing risk for common chronic diseases. The odds ratio for risk of developing disease with a positive FHH is frequently greater than 2, and actions can be taken to mitigate risk by adhering to screening guidelines, genetic counselling, genetic risk testing, and other screening methods. Challenges to the routine acquisition of FHH include constraints on provider time to collect data and the difficulty in accessing risk calculators. Disease-specific and broader risk assessment software platforms have been developed, many with clinical decision support and informatics interoperability, but few access patient information directly. Software that allows integration of FHH with the electronic medical record and clinical decision support capabilities has provided solutions to many of these challenges. Patient facing, electronic medical record, and web-enabled FHH platforms have been developed, and can provide greater identification of risk compared with conventional FHH ascertainment in primary care. FHH, along with cascade screening, can be an important component of population health management approaches to overall reduction of risk.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31275-9

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [8]National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Familial breast cancer: classification and care of people at risk of familial breast cancer and management of breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer. Cardiff: National Collaborating Centre for Cancer; 2013 (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 164.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK247567/ (accessed March 30, 2019). 25340237
  2. [9]NICE. Familial breast cancer: classification, care and managing breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer. 2013 (updated 2017). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg164 (accessed March 30, 2019). 31940157
  3. [27]Valdez R, Yoon PW, Qureshi N, Green RF, Khoury MJ. Family history in public health practice: a genomic tool for disease prevention and health promotion. Annu Rev Public Health 2010; 31: 69– 87. 20070206
  4. [39]Orlando LA, Wu RR, Beadles C, Implementing family health history risk stratification in primary care: impact of guideline criteria on populations and resource demand. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2014; 166C: 24– 33. 24616329
  5. [60]Sanka A, Wu RR, Beadles C, Primary care providers and identification of high-risk family health history. J Family Med Community Health 2014; 1: 1010.
  6. [74]Moonesinghe R, Beckles GLA, Liu T, Khoury MJ. The contribution of family history to the burden of diagnosed diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and prediabetes in the United States: analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009–2014. Genet Med 2018; 20: 1159– 66. 29369292 PMC6060023
  7. [77]Cohn WF, Ropka ME, Pelletier SL, Health Heritage a web-based tool for the collection and assessment of family health history: initial user experience and analytic validity. Pub Health Genom 2010; 13: 477– 91. 20424421
  8. [78]Quereshi N, Armstrong S, Dhiman P, Effect of adding systematic family history enquiry to cardiovascular disease risk assessment in primary care: a matched-pair, cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 253– 62. 22351711

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ginsburg, G. S., Wu, R. R., & Orlando, L. A.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Ginsburg, Geoffrey S
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
394
Issue
10198
Pages
596-603
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2965787050
Cited by
105
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 3
FWCI
2.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Comprehensive Cancer Network
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U01HG007282)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
Keywords
family health history, hereditary cancer predisposition, genetic counseling, family screening, clinical decision support, electronic health records, risk calculator, population health management, primary care
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Humans, Medical History Taking, Software, Odds Ratio, Risk Assessment, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review