How Online Family History Tool Design and Message Content Impact User Perceptions: An Examination of Family Health&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Link&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

Thomas, Samuel S.; Hovick, Shelly R.; Tan, Naomi; Sturm, Amy C.; Sweet, Kevin

doi:10.1159/000493847

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The usability of the Family HealthLink tool was assessed through a semi-structured interview administered to breast cancer patients ( n = 16) and support persons ( n = 18) at an academic breast cancer center. 103 Overall, the tool users ( n = 34) reported a positive experience regarding the ease of use and design of the tool. The suggestions for tool improvements included color choice, functionality, and clarity of medical terminology.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The suggestions for tool improvements included color choice, functionality, and clarity of medical terminology. 103 The Stanford Decision Tool 108 reported usability and feasibility testing using the SUS and the Center for Healthcare Evaluation Provider Satisfaction Questionnaire. 121 Patients and clinicians reported ease of use of the tool with high SUS scores of 83 to 85.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

Kamil,

Wojcik,

Smith

et al. 2024

MDM Policy & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. Personalized web-based clinical decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening could address knowledge gaps, enhance patient autonomy in shared decision-making, and promote equitable care. The purpose of this review was to present evidence on the availability, usability, feasibility, acceptability, quality, and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools to support their integration into clinical care. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to conduct this review. We searched 6 databases to identify literature on the development, validation, usability, feasibility, acceptability testing, and uptake of the tools into practice settings. Quality assessment for each tool was conducted using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument, with quality scores ranging from 0 to 63 (lowest-highest). Results. We identified 10 tools for breast cancer prevention and 9 tools for screening. The tools included individual (e.g., age), clinical (e.g., genomic risk factors), and health behavior (e.g., alcohol use) characteristics. Fourteen tools included race/ethnicity, but no tool incorporated contextual factors (e.g., insurance, access) associated with breast cancer. All tools were internally or externally validated. Six tools had undergone usability testing in samples including White (median, 71%; range, 9%–96%), insured (99%; 97%–100%) women, with college education or higher (60%; 27%–100%). All of the tools were developed and tested in academic settings. Seven (37%) tools showed potential evidence of uptake in clinical practice. The tools had an average quality assessment score of 21 (range, 9–39). Conclusions. There is limited evidence on testing and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools in diverse clinical settings. The development, testing, and integration of tools in academic and nonacademic settings could potentially improve uptake and equitable access to these tools. Highlights There were 19 personalized, interactive, Web-based decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening. Breast cancer outcomes were personalized based on individual clinical characteristics (e.g., age, medical history), genomic risk factors (e.g., BRCA1/2), race and ethnicity, and health behaviors (e.g., smoking). The tools did not include contextual factors (e.g., insurance status, access to screening facilities) that could potentially contribute to breast cancer outcomes. Validation, usability, acceptability, and feasibility testing were conducted mostly among White and/or insured patients with some college education (or higher) in academic settings. There was limited evidence on testing and uptake of the tools in nonacademic clinical settings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

Kamil,

Wojcik,

Smith

et al. 2024

MDM Policy & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Changing Role of the Genetic Counsellor in the Genomics Era

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leveraging Health Information Technology to Collect Family Cancer History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Li¹,

Kahn²,

Wing³

et al. 2021

JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE Collection of family cancer histories (FCHs) can identify individuals at risk for familial cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature on existing strategies whereby providers use information technology to assemble FCH. METHODS A systematic search of online databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase) between 1980 and 2020 was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed through the chi-square test (ie, Cochrane Q test) and the inconsistency statistic (I2). A random-effects analysis was used to calculate the pooled proportions and means. RESULTS The comprehensive search produced 4,005 publications. Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven information technology tools were evaluated. Eighteen out of 28 studies were electronic surveys administered before visits (18, 64.3%). Five studies administered tablet surveys in offices (5, 17.8%). Four studies collected electronic survey via kiosk before visits (4, 14.3%), and one study used animated virtual counselor during visits (1, 3.6%). Among the studies that use an FCH tool, the pooled estimate of the overall completion rate was 86% (CI, 72% to 96%), 84% (CI, 65% to 97%) for electronic surveys before visits, 89% (CI, 0.74 to 0.98) for tablet surveys, and 85% (CI, 0.66 to 0.98) for surveys via kiosk. Mean time required for completion was 31.0 minutes (CI, 26.1 to 35.9), and the pooled estimate of proportions of participants referred to genetic testing was 12% (CI, 4% to 23%). CONCLUSION Our review found that electronic FCH collection can be completed successfully by patients in a time-efficient manner with high rates of satisfaction.

show abstract

How Online Family History Tool Design and Message Content Impact User Perceptions: An Examination of Family Health<b><i>Link</i></b>

Cited by 3 publications

References 69 publications

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

The Changing Role of the Genetic Counsellor in the Genomics Era

Leveraging Health Information Technology to Collect Family Cancer History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About