Adaptation and pilot implementation of a hereditary cancer risk-assessment tool for primary care.

IF 2.6 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sukh Makhnoon, Anoop Gurram, Eyad Alrabbat, Tiwatope Ibidapo, Ying Ma, Emanuel Villa, Michael E Bowen, Sayoni Lahiri, Celette Sugg Skinner, Sara Pirzadeh-Miller, Steven Leach
{"title":"Adaptation and pilot implementation of a hereditary cancer risk-assessment tool for primary care.","authors":"Sukh Makhnoon, Anoop Gurram, Eyad Alrabbat, Tiwatope Ibidapo, Ying Ma, Emanuel Villa, Michael E Bowen, Sayoni Lahiri, Celette Sugg Skinner, Sara Pirzadeh-Miller, Steven Leach","doi":"10.1186/s12875-025-02935-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Family history-based risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer is guideline-recommended but clinical implementation remains limited. This is likely, in part, because it adds to the limited time primary care providers (PCPs) have to implement all guideline-recommended care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We adapted Family History Screening 7 (or FHS7), designed for administration by a PCP, for self-report by primary care patients. We used the Framework for Reporting Adaptation and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME) to guide the modifications. We conducted a pilot feasibility study of hereditary prevention program using the adapted risk-assessment tool and report results from the first year of the program (February 2023-March 2024).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Feedback from clinical stakeholders and our literature review revealed that, while hereditary cancer risk assessment was a priority for the primary care setting, implementation by PCPs was not feasible. We therefore adapted FHS7 for patient self-report by separating double-barreled items and eliminating jargon, resulting in nine items- six with binary (yes/no) and three with numeric responses. Outcomes from pilot implementation of the adapted FHS7 (n=4,355) showed high completion rate (77% completed all items), with greater completion via MyChart than in-person (87% vs. 13%), and higher non-response for the three items with numeric responses compared to the six with binary responses. Overall, positivity rate of the adapted FHS7 was 36%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This paper describes our team's process of adapting the FHS7 questionnaire to retain the core function (evaluating specific family history of cancer information) while adapting to fit the clinical context. Preliminary implementation data suggest high completion rate in the primary care setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":"26 1","pages":"246"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12326799/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02935-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Family history-based risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer is guideline-recommended but clinical implementation remains limited. This is likely, in part, because it adds to the limited time primary care providers (PCPs) have to implement all guideline-recommended care.

Methods: We adapted Family History Screening 7 (or FHS7), designed for administration by a PCP, for self-report by primary care patients. We used the Framework for Reporting Adaptation and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME) to guide the modifications. We conducted a pilot feasibility study of hereditary prevention program using the adapted risk-assessment tool and report results from the first year of the program (February 2023-March 2024).

Results: Feedback from clinical stakeholders and our literature review revealed that, while hereditary cancer risk assessment was a priority for the primary care setting, implementation by PCPs was not feasible. We therefore adapted FHS7 for patient self-report by separating double-barreled items and eliminating jargon, resulting in nine items- six with binary (yes/no) and three with numeric responses. Outcomes from pilot implementation of the adapted FHS7 (n=4,355) showed high completion rate (77% completed all items), with greater completion via MyChart than in-person (87% vs. 13%), and higher non-response for the three items with numeric responses compared to the six with binary responses. Overall, positivity rate of the adapted FHS7 was 36%.

Conclusion: This paper describes our team's process of adapting the FHS7 questionnaire to retain the core function (evaluating specific family history of cancer information) while adapting to fit the clinical context. Preliminary implementation data suggest high completion rate in the primary care setting.

初级保健遗传癌症风险评估工具的调整和试点实施。
背景:基于家族史的遗传性乳腺癌和卵巢癌风险评估是指南推荐的,但临床实施仍然有限。这在一定程度上可能是因为它增加了初级保健提供者(pcp)必须实施所有指南推荐的护理的有限时间。方法:我们改编了家族史筛查7(或FHS7),由PCP给药,用于初级保健患者的自我报告。我们使用了报告适应和修改基于证据的实施战略的框架(FRAME)来指导修改。我们使用适应性风险评估工具对遗传预防项目进行了试点可行性研究,并报告了项目第一年(2023年2月至2024年3月)的结果。结果:来自临床利益相关者的反馈和我们的文献综述显示,虽然遗传癌症风险评估是初级保健机构的优先事项,但pcp的实施并不可行。因此,我们将FHS7用于患者自我报告,通过分离双管项目和消除术语,产生9个项目- 6个是二进制(是/否),3个是数字回答。试点实施改编的FHS7 (n= 4355)的结果显示出高完成率(77%完成了所有项目),通过MyChart完成的项目比亲自完成的项目更多(87%对13%),与六个二元回答相比,三个数字回答项目的无反应率更高。总体上,适应型FHS7阳性率为36%。结论:本文描述了我们团队对FHS7问卷进行调整以保留其核心功能(评估特定的癌症家族史信息)同时适应临床环境的过程。初步实施数据表明,初级保健机构的完成率很高。
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
CiteScore
4.40
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