Family history of diabetes as a potential public health tool
Abstract
Given the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with type 2 diabetes, it is important that public health seek ways to delay or prevent the onset of this condition. Risk factors for type 2 diabetes are well established and include underlying genetic susceptibility. Despite this knowledge, as well as significant advances in understanding the human genome, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes continues to rise at an alarming rate. Because type 2 diabetes is a complex condition involving a combination of genetic and environmental factors, DNA testing for susceptibility genes is not yet warranted. However, because family history reflects genetic susceptibility in addition to other factors, it may be a useful public health tool for disease prevention. When evaluating family history as a public health tool, several important issues need to be considered, including the analytic and clinical validity and the clinical utility of using family history as a screening tool. These issues as well as a review of the epidemiologic evidence evaluating family history as a risk factor will be reviewed.Overall, a family history approach appears to be a promising new public health tool to fight the growing epidemic of diabetes in the United States. Adequate levels of funding to further evaluate this approach and to develop appropriate tools should be made available for research activities focused on this important area.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Family history is a critical risk factor associated with numerous diseases.
“Patients’ family history (FH) is a critical risk factor associated with numerous diseases [1-3] such as diabetes [4], coronary heart disease [5], and multiple types of cancers [6-9].”
From Extracting Family History of Patients From Clinical Narratives: Exploring an End-to-End Solution With Deep Learning Models (2020) · cites this paper as [4]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 335
- Authors
- Harrison, T. A., Hindorff, L. A., Kim, H., Wines, R. C. M., Bowen, D. J., McGrath, B. B., & Edwards, K. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Edwards, Karen L
- ORCID
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-02
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 152-159
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2077599596
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 1.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U36 CCU 300430-22, U36/CCU300430-20)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL007902)
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA149051)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes, family history (medicine), genetic susceptibility, diabetes prevention, diabetes screening, risk factors, clinical validity, clinical utility, genetic testing
- MeSH terms
- Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Family, Humans, Medical History Taking, Public Health, Risk Factors, United States, Health Behavior, Risk Assessment, Genetic Predisposition to Disease
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