Experience and Perceptions of a Family Health History Risk Assessment Tool among Multi-Ethnic Asian Breast Cancer Patients

A family health history-based risk assessment is particularly valuable for guiding cancer screening and treatment strategies, yet an optimal implementation depends upon end-users’ values and needs. This is not only true prior to disease development, but also for those already affected. The aim of this study is to explore perceptions of the value of knowing one’s family health history (FHH)-based risk, experience using a patient-facing FHH tool and the potential of the tool for wider implementation. Twenty multi-ethnic Asian patients undergoing breast cancer treatment in Singapore completed an FHH-based risk assessment. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted and data were thematically analyzed. All participants were female and slightly more than half were Chinese. The acceptance and usage of an FHH risk assessment tool for cancers and its broader implementation was affected by a perceived importance of personal control over early detection, patient concerns of anxiety for themselves and their families due to risk results, concerns for genetic discrimination, adequacy of follow-up care plans and Asian cultural beliefs toward disease and dying. This study uniquely sheds light on the factors affecting Asian breast cancer patients’ perceptions about undergoing an FHH-based risk assessment, which should inform steps for a broader implementation in Asian healthcare systems.

How is family health history discussed in routine primary healthcare? A qualitative study of archived family doctor consultations

ObjectivesFamily health history underpins genetic medicine. Our study aimed to explore language and patterns of communication relating to family health history observed in interactions between general practitioners (GPs) and their patients within routine primary care consultations.DesignSecondary analysis of patient and GP routine consultation data (n=252).ParticipantsConsultations that included ‘family health history’ were eligible for inclusion (n=58).Primary outcomesA qualitative inductive analysis of the interactions from consultation transcripts.Results46/58 conversations about family health history were initiated by the GP. Most discussions around family history lasted for between approximately 1 to 2 min. Patients were invited to share family health history through one of two ways: non-specific enquiry (eg, by asking the patient about ‘anything that runs in the family’); or specific enquiry where they were asked if they had a ‘strong family history’ in relation to a particular condition, for example, breast cancer. Patients often responded to either approach with a simple no, but fuller negative responses also occurred regularly and typically included an account of some kind (eg, explaining family relationships/dynamics which impeded or prevented the accessibility of information).ConclusionsFamily health history is regarded as a genetic test and is embedded in the sociocultural norms of the patient from whom information is being sought. Our findings highlight that it is more complex than asking simply if ‘anything’ runs in the family. As the collection of family health history is expected to be more routine, it will be important to also consider it from sociocultural perspectives in order to help mitigate any inequities in how family history is collected, and therefore used (or not) in a person’s healthcare. Orientating an enquiry away from ‘anything’ and asking more specific details about particular conditions may help facilitate the dialogue.

Comparison of Environmental and Occupational Health in Gas Flare Host Communities and those Farther from Gas Flare Sites

Background: Gas flaring occurs during crude oil extraction and can have adverse implications for the community’ health and the environment. Reports show that residents complain about ill-health e.g. insomnia due to heat generated during gas flaring. This article therefore compares the impact on health in gas flaring host and non-gas flaring host communities. Methodology: This research followed a mixed method approach of quantitative and qualitative analysis. Six questions were asked on occupation, residence, distance from the gas flare, social status in community, health status and family health history. Two questions assessed health status as well as family health history of participants and were semi-qualitative. All questions were adopted from a previously published report. Comparison of environmental and occupational data between host and neighbouring communities was done. Outcome: Nearness of residence to gas flare sites show increased frequency in the number of ill health issues in respondents and their families. The impact of gas flaring i.e. ill health is high in those near to the site and diabetes is more prevalent amongst other ill-health conditions surveyed. Multiple comparisons show that the group farthest from gas flare site have significantly least proportion of members who are stressed or suffering respiratory problems. Conclusion: Impact on health or wellbeing among members of gas flaring host communities are more severe when compared to those far. Government policies need to mitigate the adverse effects of gas flaring and the community needs to be educated on the impacts of gas flaring and how this can be minimised.

Exploring the Role of Community Health Workers in Improving the Collection of Family Health History: A Pilot Study

Community health workers (CHWs) have been successful partners in addressing public health and health care challenges but have yet to be engaged in efforts to promote family health history (FHH) collection. FHH information is a key factor in determining disease risk and supporting screening and prevention across multiple diseases. The collection of FHH information could be facilitated by the existing cadre of CHWs already working alongside clients and families. In this qualitative study, we interviewed 30 CHWs from Georgia to better understand the current level of knowledge about FHH, perceptions of how FHH collection aligns with their role, and barriers and facilitators in order to support more active involvement of CHWs in FHH collection. Interviews were completed, transcribed, and double coded by three study team members. More than half of CHWs reported knowing their own FHH information. CHWs showed a strong interest and support for collecting FHH in their job, despite limited current engagement in this role. CHWs acknowledged the collection of FHH as being an opportunity to empower clients to have conversations with their providers. To better support this work, CHWs requested training in using and integrating FHH tools into their workflow and support in communicating about FHH with their clients. Our findings suggest that with support and training, CHWs are uniquely positioned to improve FHH collection among their client base. Ultimately, improving FHH collection skills among the population could allow for better integration of risk-stratified approaches that are informed by FHH information for the prevention, management, and treatment of disease.