Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review

Špela Miroševič, Z. Klemenc-Ketiš, B. Peterlin
{"title":"Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review","authors":"Špela Miroševič, Z. Klemenc-Ketiš, B. Peterlin","doi":"10.1080/13814788.2022.2061457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Many medical family history (FH) tools are available for various settings. Although FH tools can be a powerful health screening tool in primary care (PC), they are currently underused. Objectives This review explores the FH tools currently available for PC and evaluates their clinical performance. Methods Five databases were systematically searched until May 2021. Identified tools were evaluated on the following criteria: time-to-complete, integration with electronic health record (EMR) systems, patient administration, risk-assessment ability, evidence-based management recommendations, analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility. Results We identified 26 PC FH tools. Analytical and clinical validity was poorly reported and agreement between FH and gold standard was commonly inadequately reported and assessed. Sensitivity was acceptable; specificity was found in half of the reviewed tools to be poor. Most reviewed tools showed a capacity to successfully identify individuals with increased risk of disease (6.2–84.6% of high and/or moderate or increased risk individuals). Conclusion Despite the potential of FH tools to improve risk stratification of patients in PC, clinical performance of current tools remains limited as well as their integration in EMR systems. Twenty-one FH tools are designed to be self-administered by patients.","PeriodicalId":383035,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of General Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2022.2061457","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract Background Many medical family history (FH) tools are available for various settings. Although FH tools can be a powerful health screening tool in primary care (PC), they are currently underused. Objectives This review explores the FH tools currently available for PC and evaluates their clinical performance. Methods Five databases were systematically searched until May 2021. Identified tools were evaluated on the following criteria: time-to-complete, integration with electronic health record (EMR) systems, patient administration, risk-assessment ability, evidence-based management recommendations, analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility. Results We identified 26 PC FH tools. Analytical and clinical validity was poorly reported and agreement between FH and gold standard was commonly inadequately reported and assessed. Sensitivity was acceptable; specificity was found in half of the reviewed tools to be poor. Most reviewed tools showed a capacity to successfully identify individuals with increased risk of disease (6.2–84.6% of high and/or moderate or increased risk individuals). Conclusion Despite the potential of FH tools to improve risk stratification of patients in PC, clinical performance of current tools remains limited as well as their integration in EMR systems. Twenty-one FH tools are designed to be self-administered by patients.
用于初级保健的家族史工具:系统回顾
背景:许多医疗家族史(FH)工具可用于各种设置。虽然FH工具可以成为初级保健(PC)中强有力的健康筛查工具,但它们目前未得到充分利用。目的本综述探讨了目前用于PC的FH工具,并评估了它们的临床表现。方法系统检索5个数据库至2021年5月。根据以下标准对确定的工具进行评估:完成时间、与电子健康记录(EMR)系统的集成、患者管理、风险评估能力、循证管理建议、分析和临床有效性以及临床效用。结果共鉴定出26种PC FH工具。分析和临床有效性的报道很少,FH和金标准之间的一致性通常没有得到充分的报道和评估。敏感性是可以接受的;在所审查的工具中,有一半的工具的特异性较差。大多数审查的工具显示有能力成功识别疾病风险增加的个体(6.2-84.6%的高风险和/或中度或高风险个体)。结论:尽管FH工具有潜力改善PC患者的风险分层,但现有工具的临床性能仍然有限,其在EMR系统中的整合也有限。设计了21种FH工具供患者自行使用。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信