‘I think we just do it once and leave it …’ The collection and utility of family health history in general practice in Aotearoa New Zealand: a qualitative study

Abstract

Introduction The value of family health history as a means to understanding health risk has been long known. Its value in a precision medicine context is also now becoming apparent. General practitioners (GPs) are considered to play a key role in the collection, and investigation, of family health history, but it remains widely reported as being both poorly and infrequently undertaken. Little is known about this practice in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). Aim This study aimed to explore current practices in relation to the ascertainment of family health history, with a view towards precision medicine. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 GPs recruited from one urban area of NZ. The interviews were subjected to a thematic analysis. Results Family health history information was used to varying degrees in four areas – risk ascertainment, patient engagement with a diagnosis, social context and building relationships. Patient cultural considerations were rarely mentioned. Reliability of information provided by patients, resource constraints, context driven consults and electronic health record limitations are potential indicators of current limits of family health history. Discussion Our findings present a baseline of current practice and echo larger studies from overseas. As precision medicine is not yet routine, a unique opportunity exists for consideration to be given to establishing specific roles within the NZ health system to enable equitable practice of, and subsequent health gains from, the use of family/whānau health history information as part of precision medicine.

Doing the ‘bread and butter’ of general practice well in uncertain times

“…They found no such association. The consultation is also the focus of Jefferies and colleagues' 10 qualitative study exploring the collection and utility of the family health history, which was used to varying degrees in four areas -risk ascertainment, patient engagement with a diagnosis, social context and building relationships.…”