Family health history (FHx) is one of the most important pieces of information available to help genetic counselors and other clinicians identify risk and prevent disease. Unfortunately, the collection of FHx from patients is often too time consuming to be done during a clinical visit. Fortunately, there are many electronic FHx tools designed to help patients gather and organize their own FHx information prior to a clinic visit. We conducted a review and analysis of electronic FHx tools to better understand what tools are available, to compare and contrast to each other, to highlight features of various tools, and to provide a foundation for future evaluation and comparisons across FHx tools. Through our analysis, we included and abstracted 17 patient-facing electronic FHx tools and explored these tools around four axes: organization information, family history collection and display, clinical data collected, and clinical workflow integration. We found a large number of differences among FHx tools, with no two the same. This paper provides a useful review for health care providers, researchers, and patient advocates interested in understanding the differences among the available patient-facing electronic FHx tools.

PURPOSE We developed a Web-based chatbot (ItRunsInMyFamily.com) to help individuals collect their family health history (FHx) and determine their risk for hereditary cancer. The purpose of the current study was to assess the characteristics of users and identify opportunities to improve the FHx collection tool. METHODS During Family Health History Month (November 2019) we launched an FHx campaign using social media advertisements to raise awareness about hereditary cancers and encourage individuals in the general population to use ItRunsInMyFamily to collect their FHx. Through this campaign, we were able to gather information about users and identify opportunities to improve the tool. RESULTS We reached 14,140 users in November 2019 through online marketing campaigns—Facebook, Google, previous ItRuns users, and Web site marketing. Of those, 3,204 completed the full FHx assessment and received risk recommendations. The campaign targeted women between age 40 and 60 years. Users came from 3,783 counties around the United States, 48 unique cancers were reported among probands, and 79 unique cancers were reported among family members, an average of two and a half cancers per family. CONCLUSION Our results demonstrate that it is possible to gather FHx information at the population level, with high levels of engagement and interest in the topic. There is room for future enhancements and improvements to ItRunsInMyFamily to broaden its reach and encourage individuals to learn about and record their health information.

Background Health information technology (IT) is becoming increasingly utilized by cancer genetic counselors (CGCs). We sought to understand the current engagement, satisfaction, and opportunities to adopt new health IT tools among CGCs. Methods We conducted a mixed‐mode survey among 128 board‐certified CGCs using both closed‐ and open‐ended questions. We then evaluated the utilization and satisfaction among 10 types of health IT tools, including the following: cancer screening tool, family health history (FHx) collection tools, electronic health records (EHRs), telegenetics software, pedigree drawing software, genetic risk assessment tools, gene test panel ordering tools, electronic patient education tools, patient communication tools, and family communication tools. Results Seven of 10 health IT tools were used by a minority of CGCs. The vast majority of respondents reported using EHRs (95.2%) and genetic risk assessment tools (88.6%). Genetic test panel ordering software had the highest satisfaction rate (very satisfied and satisfied) at 80.0%, followed by genetic risk assessment tools (77.1%). EHRs had the highest dissatisfaction rate among CGCs at 18.3%. Dissatisfaction with a health IT tool was associated with desire to change: EHRs ( p < .001), cancer screening tools ( p = .010), genetic risk assessment tools ( p = .024), and family history collection tools ( p = .026). We found that nearly half of CGCs were considering adopting or changing their FHx tool (49.2%), cancer screening tool (44.9%), and pedigree drawing tool (41.8%). Conclusion Overall, CGCs reported high levels of satisfaction among commonly used health IT tools. Tools that enable the collection of FHx, cancer screening tools, and pedigree drawing software represent the greatest opportunities for research and development.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists lack time and training to appropriately identify patients at increased risk for hereditary cancer using family health history (FHx) and clinical practice guideline (CPG) criteria. We built a tool, “ItRunsInMyFamily” (ItRuns) that automates FHx collection and risk assessment using CPGs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ItRuns by measuring the level of concordance in referral patterns for genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT) between the CPGs as applied by the tool and genetic counselors (GCs), in comparison to oncologists and PCPs. The extent to which non-GCs are discordant with CPGs is a gap that health information technology, such as ItRuns, can help close to facilitate the identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We curated 18 FHx cases and surveyed GCs and non-GCs (oncologists and PCPs) to assess concordance with ItRuns CPG criteria for referring patients for GC/GT. Percent agreement was used to describe concordance, and logistic regression to compare providers and the tool’s concordance with CPG criteria. <b><i>Results:</i></b> GCs had the best overall concordance with the CPGs used in ItRuns at 82.2%, followed by oncologists with 66.0% and PCPs with 60.6%. GCs were significantly more likely to concur with CPGs (OR = 4.04, 95% CI = 3.35–4.89) than non-GCs. All providers had higher concordance with CPGs for FHx cases that met the criteria for genetic counseling/testing than for cases that did not. <b><i>Discussion/Conclusion:</i></b> The risk assessment provided by ItRuns was highly concordant with that of GC’s, particularly for at-risk individuals. The use of such technology-based tools improves efficiency and can lead to greater numbers of at-risk individuals accessing genetic counseling, testing, and mutation-based interventions to improve health.

Background Family health history (FHx) is an effective tool for identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer. Hereditary cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPG) contain criteria used to evaluate FHx and to make recommendations for genetic consultation. Comparing different CPGs used to evaluate a common set of FHx provides insight into how well the CPGs perform, the extent of agreement across guidelines, and how well they identify patients who should consider a cancer genetic consultation. Methods We compare the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Networks (NCCN) (2019) CPG criteria for FHx collected by a chatbot and evaluated by ontologies and web services in a previous study. Collected FHx met criteria from seven groups: Gene Mutation, Breast and Ovarian, Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), Colorectal and Endometrial, Relative Meets Criteria, ACMG Only Criteria, and NCCN Testing. CPG Criteria were coded and matched across 12 ACMG sub-guidelines and 6 NCCN sub-guidelines for comparison purposes. Results The dataset contains 4915 records, of which 2221 met either ACMG or NCCN criteria and 2694 did not. There was significant overlap—1179 probands met both ACMG and NCCN criteria. The greatest similarities were for Gene Mutation and Breast and Ovarian criteria and the greatest disparity existed among Colorectal and Endometrial criteria. Only 156 positive gene mutations were reported and of the 2694 probands who did not meet criteria, 90.6% of them reported at least one cancer in their personal or family cancer history. Conclusion Hereditary cancer CPGs are useful for identifying patients at risk of developing cancer based on FHx. This comparison shows that with the aid of chatbots, ontologies, and web services, CPGs can be more efficiently applied to identify patients at risk of hereditary cancer. Additionally this comparison examines similarities and differences between ACMG and NCCN and shows the importance of using both guidelines when evaluating hereditary cancer risk.