Education and electronic medical records and genomics network, challenges, and lessons learned from a large-scale clinical trial using polygenic risk scores.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have potential to improve health care by identifying individuals that have elevated risk for common complex conditions. Use of PRS in clinical practice, however, requires careful assessment of the needs and capabilities of patients, providers, and health care systems. The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network is conducting a collaborative study which will return PRS to 25,000 pediatric and adult participants. All participants will receive a risk report, potentially classifying them as high risk (∼2-10% per condition) for 1 or more of 10 conditions based on PRS. The study population is enriched by participants from racial and ethnic minority populations, underserved populations, and populations who experience poorer medical outcomes. All 10 eMERGE clinical sites conducted focus groups, interviews, and/or surveys to understand educational needs among key stakeholders-participants, providers, and/or study staff. Together, these studies highlighted the need for tools that address the perceived benefit/value of PRS, types of education/support needed, accessibility, and PRS-related knowledge and understanding. Based on findings from these preliminary studies, the network harmonized training initiatives and formal/informal educational resources. This paper summarizes eMERGE's collective approach to assessing educational needs and developing educational approaches for primary stakeholders. It discusses challenges encountered and solutions provided.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk. DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk. INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later. MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed. CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.

Critical components of genomic medicine practice for non-genetics healthcare professionals: Genetic counselors' perspectives and implications for medical education.

Genetic services are increasingly provided by non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) with minimal formal training in genetics/genomics. Research demonstrates gaps in knowledge and clinical practices in genetics/genomics among NGHPs, but there is a lack of consensus on the specific knowledge needed by NGHPs to effectively provide genetic services. As clinical genetics professionals, genetic counselors (GCs) have insight into the critical components of genetics/genomics knowledge and practices needed by NGHPs. This study explored GCs' beliefs regarding whether NGHPs should provide genetic services and identified GCs' perceptions of the components of knowledge and clinical practice in genetics/genomics that are most critical for NGHPs providing genetic services. Two hundred and forty GCs completed an online quantitative survey with 17 participating in a follow-up qualitative interview. Descriptive statistics and cross-comparisons were generated for survey data. Interview data were analyzed using an inductive qualitative method for cross-case analysis. Most GCs disagreed with NGHPs providing genetic services, but beliefs varied widely, ranging from disagreement due to perceived gaps in knowledge or clinical skills to acceptance of NGHPs providing genetic services due to limited access to genetics professionals. Across survey and interview data, GCs endorsed the interpretation of genetic test results, understanding implications of results, collaboration with genetics professionals, knowledge of the risks and benefits to testing, and recognizing indications for genetic testing as critical components of knowledge and clinical practice for NGHPs. Several recommendations for improving the provision of genetic services were provided by respondents including educating NGHPs to provide genetic services through case-based continuing medical education and increasing collaboration between NGHPs and genetics professionals. As GCs are healthcare providers with experience and vested interests in educating NGHPs, their perspectives can help inform the creation of continuing medical education to ensure patients' access to high-quality genomic medicine care from providers of varying backgrounds.

Conducting inclusive research in genetics for transgender, gender-diverse, and sex-diverse individuals: Case analyses and recommendations from a clinical genomics study.

A person's phenotypic sex (i.e., endogenous expression of primary, secondary, and endocrinological sex characteristics) can impact crucial aspects of genetic assessment and resulting clinical care recommendations. In studies with genetics components, it is critical to collect phenotypic sex, information about current organ/tissue inventory and hormonal milieu, and gender identity. If researchers do not carefully construct data models, transgender, gender diverse, and sex diverse (TGSD) individuals may be given inappropriate care recommendations and/or be subjected to misgendering, inflicting medical and psychosocial harms. The recognized need for an inclusive care experience should not be limited to clinical practice but should extend to the research setting, where researchers must build an inclusive experience for TGSD participants. Here, we review three TGSD participants in the Family History and Cancer Risk Study (FOREST) to critically evaluate sex- and gender-related survey measures and associated data models in a study seeking to identify patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes. Furthermore, we leverage these participants' responses to sex- and gender identity-related questions in FOREST to inform needed changes to the FOREST data model and to make recommendations for TGSD-inclusive genetics research design, data models, and processes.

The Genomic Medicine Integrative Research Framework: A Conceptual Framework for Conducting Genomic Medicine Research.

Conceptual frameworks are useful in research because they can highlight priority research domains, inform decisions about interventions, identify outcomes and factors to measure, and display how factors might relate to each other to generate and test hypotheses. Discovery, translational, and implementation research are all critical to the overall mission of genomic medicine and prevention, but they have yet to be organized into a unified conceptual framework. To fill this gap, our diverse team collaborated to develop the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research (GMIR) Framework, a simple but comprehensive tool to aid the genomics community in developing research questions, strategies, and measures and in integrating genomic medicine and prevention into clinical practice. Here we present the GMIR Framework and its development, along with examples of its use for research development, demonstrating how we applied it to select and harmonize measures for use across diverse genomic medicine implementation projects. Researchers can utilize the GMIR Framework for their own research, collaborative investigations, and clinical implementation efforts; clinicians can use it to establish and evaluate programs; and all stakeholders can use it to help allocate resources and make sure that the full complexity of etiology is included in research and program design, development, and evaluation.

Implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic family health history based risk assessment and impact on clinical disease prevention and surveillance activities.

BACKGROUND: Systematically assessing disease risk can improve population health by identifying those eligible for enhanced prevention/screening strategies. This study aims to determine the clinical impact of a systematic risk assessment in diverse primary care populations. METHODS: Hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of a family health history-based health risk assessment (HRA) tied to risk-based guideline recommendations enrolling from 2014-2017 with 12 months of post-intervention survey data and 24 months of electronic medical record (EMR) data capture. SETTING: 19 primary care clinics at four geographically and culturally diverse U.S. healthcare systems. PARTICIPANTS: any English or Spanish-speaking adult with an upcoming appointment at an enrolling clinic. METHODS: A personal and family health history based HRA with integrated guideline-based clinical decision support (CDS) was completed by each participant prior to their appointment. Risk reports were provided to patients and providers to discuss at their clinical encounter. OUTCOMES: provider and patient discussion and provider uptake (i.e. ordering) and patient uptake (i.e. recommendation completion) of CDS recommendations. MEASURES: patient and provider surveys and EMR data. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred twenty nine participants (mean age 56.2 [SD13.9], 69.6% female) completed the HRA and had EMR data available for analysis. 762 (41.6%) received a recommendation (29.7% for genetic counseling (GC); 15.2% for enhanced breast/colon cancer screening). Those with recommendations frequently discussed disease risk with their provider (8.7%-38.2% varied by recommendation, p-values ≤ 0.004). In the GC subgroup, provider discussions increased referrals to counseling (44.4% with vs. 5.9% without, P < 0.001). Recommendation uptake was highest for colon cancer screening (provider = 67.9%; patient = 86.8%) and lowest for breast cancer chemoprevention (0%). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic health risk assessment revealed that almost half the population were at increased disease risk based on guidelines. Risk identification resulted in shared discussions between participants and providers but variable clinical action uptake depending upon the recommendation. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to uptake by both patients and providers will be essential for optimizing HRA tools and achieving their promise of improving population health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01956773 , registered 10/8/2013.

Establishing the value of genomics in medicine: the IGNITE Pragmatic Trials Network.

PURPOSE: A critical gap in the adoption of genomic medicine into medical practice is the need for the rigorous evaluation of the utility of genomic medicine interventions. METHODS: The Implementing Genomics in Practice Pragmatic Trials Network (IGNITE PTN) was formed in 2018 to measure the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of genomic medicine interventions, to assess approaches for real-world application of genomic medicine in diverse clinical settings, and to produce generalizable knowledge on clinical trials using genomic interventions. Five clinical sites and a coordinating center evaluated trial proposals and developed working groups to enable their implementation. RESULTS: Two pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have been initiated, one evaluating genetic risk APOL1 variants in African Americans in the management of their hypertension, and the other to evaluate the use of pharmacogenetic testing for medications to manage acute and chronic pain as well as depression. CONCLUSION: IGNITE PTN is a network that carries out PCTs in genomic medicine; it is focused on diversity and inclusion of underrepresented minority trial participants; it uses electronic health records and clinical decision support to deliver the interventions. IGNITE PTN will develop the evidence to support (or oppose) the adoption of genomic medicine interventions by patients, providers, and payers.

Clinical implementation of an oncology-specific family health history risk assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: The presence of hereditary cancer syndromes in cancer patients can have an impact on current clinical care and post-treatment prevention and surveillance measures. Several barriers inhibit identification of hereditary cancer syndromes in routine practice. This paper describes the impact of using a patient-facing family health history risk assessment platform on the identification and referral of breast cancer patients to genetic counselling services. METHODS: This was a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study completed in breast cancer clinics. English-literate patients not previously referred for genetic counselling and/or gone through genetic testing were offered enrollment. Consented participants were provided educational materials on family health history collection, entered their family health history into the platform and completed a satisfaction survey. Upon completion, participants and their clinicians were given personalized risk reports. Chart abstraction was done to identify actions taken by patients, providers and genetic counsellors. RESULTS: Of 195 patients approached, 102 consented and completed the study (mean age 55.7, 100 % women). Sixty-six (65 %) met guideline criteria for genetic counseling of which 24 (36 %) were referred for genetic counseling. Of those referred, 13 (54 %) participants attended and eight (33 %) completed genetic testing. On multivariate logistic regression, referral was not associated with age, cancer stage, or race but was associated with clinical provider (p = 0.041). Most providers (71 %) had higher referral rates during the study compared to prior. The majority of participants found the experience useful (84 %), were more aware of their health risks (83 %), and were likely to recommend using a patient-facing platform to others (69 %). CONCLUSIONS: 65 % of patients attending breast cancer clinics in this study are at-risk for hereditary conditions based on current guidelines. Using a patient-facing risk assessment platform enhances the ability to identify these patients systematically and with widespread acceptability and recognized value by patients. As only a third of at-risk participants received referrals for genetic counseling, further understanding barriers to referral is needed to optimize hereditary risk assessment in oncology practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH Clinical Trials registry, NCT04639934 . Registered Nov 23, 2020 -- Retrospectively registered.

Family health history: underused for actionable risk assessment.

Family health history (FHH) is the most useful means of assessing risk for common chronic diseases. The odds ratio for risk of developing disease with a positive FHH is frequently greater than 2, and actions can be taken to mitigate risk by adhering to screening guidelines, genetic counselling, genetic risk testing, and other screening methods. Challenges to the routine acquisition of FHH include constraints on provider time to collect data and the difficulty in accessing risk calculators. Disease-specific and broader risk assessment software platforms have been developed, many with clinical decision support and informatics interoperability, but few access patient information directly. Software that allows integration of FHH with the electronic medical record and clinical decision support capabilities has provided solutions to many of these challenges. Patient facing, electronic medical record, and web-enabled FHH platforms have been developed, and can provide greater identification of risk compared with conventional FHH ascertainment in primary care. FHH, along with cascade screening, can be an important component of population health management approaches to overall reduction of risk.

Building evidence and measuring clinical outcomes for genomic medicine.

Human genomic sequencing has potential diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic value across a wide breadth of clinical disciplines. One barrier to widespread adoption is the paucity of evidence for improved outcomes in patients who do not already have an indication for more focused testing. In this Series paper, we review clinical outcome studies in genomic medicine and discuss the important features and key challenges to building evidence for next generation sequencing in the context of routine patient care.

Correction: Developing a common framework for evaluating the implementation of genomic medicine interventions in clinical care: the IGNITE Network's Common Measures Working Group.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

At the intersection of precision medicine and population health: an implementation-effectiveness study of family health history based systematic risk assessment in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment is a precision medicine technique that can be used to enhance population health when applied to prevention. Several barriers limit the uptake of risk assessment in health care systems; and little is known about the potential impact that adoption of systematic risk assessment for screening and prevention in the primary care population might have. Here we present results of a first of its kind multi-institutional study of a precision medicine tool for systematic risk assessment. METHODS: We undertook an implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic risk assessment of primary care patients in 19 primary care clinics at four geographically and culturally diverse healthcare systems. All adult English or Spanish speaking patients were invited to enter personal and family health history data into MeTree, a patient-facing family health history driven risk assessment program, for 27 medical conditions. Risk assessment recommendations followed evidence-based guidelines for identifying and managing those at increased disease risk. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred eighty-nine participants completed MeTree, entering information on N = 25,967 individuals. Mean relatives entered = 13.7 (SD 7.9), range 7-74. N = 1443 (76.4%) participants received increased risk recommendations: 597 (31.6%) for monogenic hereditary conditions, 508 (26.9%) for familial-level risk, and 1056 (56.1%) for risk of a common chronic disease. There were 6617 recommendations given across the 1443 participants. In multivariate analysis, only the total number of relatives entered was significantly associated with receiving a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of the general primary care population meet criteria for more intensive risk management. In particular 46% for monogenic hereditary and familial level disease risk. Adopting strategies to facilitate systematic risk assessment in primary care could have a significant impact on populations within the U.S. and even beyond. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01956773 , registered 10/8/2013.

Implementation, adoption, and utility of family health history risk assessment in diverse care settings: evaluating implementation processes and impact with an implementation framework.

PURPOSE: This paper describes the implementation outcomes associated with integrating a family health history-based risk assessment and clinical decision support platform within primary care clinics at four diverse healthcare systems. METHODS: A type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial. Uptake and implementation processes were evaluated using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. RESULTS: One hundred (58%) primary care providers and 2514 (7.8%) adult patients enrolled. Enrolled patients were 69% female, 22% minority, and 32% Medicare/Medicaid. Compared with their respective clinic's population, patient-participants were more likely to be female (69 vs. 59%), older (mean age 57 vs. 49), and Caucasian (88 vs. 69%) (all p values <0.001). Female (81.3% of females vs. 78.5% of males, p value = 0.018) and Caucasian (Caucasians 90.4% vs. minority 84.1%, p value = 0.02) patient-participants were more likely to complete the study once enrolled. Patient-participant survey responses indicated MeTree was easy to use (95%), and patient-participants would recommend it to family/friends (91%). Minorities and those with less education reported greatest benefit. Enrolled providers reflected demographics of underlying provider population. CONCLUSION: Family health history-based risk assessment can be effectively implemented in diverse primary care settings and can effectively engage patients and providers. Future research should focus on finding better ways to engage young adults, males, and minorities in preventive healthcare.

Qualitative study of system-level factors related to genomic implementation.

PURPOSE: Research on genomic medicine integration has focused on applications at the individual level, with less attention paid to implementation within clinical settings. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify system-level factors that played a role in implementation of genomic medicine within Implementing GeNomics In PracTicE (IGNITE) Network projects. METHODS: Up to four study personnel, including principal investigators and study coordinators from each of six IGNITE projects, were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide that asked interviewees to describe study site(s), progress at each site, and factors facilitating or impeding project implementation. Interviews were coded following CFIR inner-setting constructs. RESULTS: Key barriers included (1) limitations in integrating genomic data and clinical decision support tools into electronic health records, (2) physician reluctance toward genomic research participation and clinical implementation due to a limited evidence base, (3) inadequate reimbursement for genomic medicine, (4) communication among and between investigators and clinicians, and (5) lack of clinical and leadership engagement. CONCLUSION: Implementation of genomic medicine is hindered by several system-level barriers to both research and practice. Addressing these barriers may serve as important facilitators for studying and implementing genomics in practice.

Developing a common framework for evaluating the implementation of genomic medicine interventions in clinical care: the IGNITE Network's Common Measures Working Group.

PurposeImplementation research provides a structure for evaluating the clinical integration of genomic medicine interventions. This paper describes the Implementing Genomics in Practice (IGNITE) Network's efforts to promote (i) a broader understanding of genomic medicine implementation research and (ii) the sharing of knowledge generated in the network.MethodsTo facilitate this goal, the IGNITE Network Common Measures Working Group (CMG) members adopted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide its approach to identifying constructs and measures relevant to evaluating genomic medicine as a whole, standardizing data collection across projects, and combining data in a centralized resource for cross-network analyses.ResultsCMG identified 10 high-priority CFIR constructs as important for genomic medicine. Of those, eight did not have standardized measurement instruments. Therefore, we developed four survey tools to address this gap. In addition, we identified seven high-priority constructs related to patients, families, and communities that did not map to CFIR constructs. Both sets of constructs were combined to create a draft genomic medicine implementation model.ConclusionWe developed processes to identify constructs deemed valuable for genomic medicine implementation and codified them in a model. These resources are freely available to facilitate knowledge generation and sharing across the field.

Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) in genomic medicine (GM) measures the clinical utility of using genomic information to guide clinical care in comparison to appropriate alternatives. We summarized findings of high-quality systematic reviews that compared the analytic and clinical validity and clinical utility of GM tests. We focused on clinical utility findings to summarize CER-derived evidence about GM and identify evidence gaps and future research needs. We abstracted key elements of study design, GM interventions, results, and study quality ratings from 21 systematic reviews published in 2010 through 2015. More than half (N = 13) of the reviews were of cancer-related tests. All reviews identified potentially important clinical applications of the GM interventions, but most had significant methodological weaknesses that largely precluded any conclusions about clinical utility. Twelve reviews discussed the importance of patient-centered outcomes, although few described evidence about the impact of genomic medicine on these outcomes. In summary, we found a very limited body of evidence about the effect of using genomic tests on health outcomes and many evidence gaps for CER to address.Genet Med advance online publication 13 April 2017.

Impact of Genetic Testing and Family Health History Based Risk Counseling on Behavior Change and Cognitive Precursors for Type 2 Diabetes.

Family health history (FHH) in the context of risk assessment has been shown to positively impact risk perception and behavior change. The added value of genetic risk testing is less certain. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) FHH and genetic risk counseling on behavior and its cognitive precursors. Subjects were non-diabetic patients randomized to counseling that included FHH +/- T2D genetic testing. Measurements included weight, BMI, fasting glucose at baseline and 12 months and behavioral and cognitive precursor (T2D risk perception and control over disease development) surveys at baseline, 3, and 12 months. 391 subjects enrolled of which 312 completed the study. Behavioral and clinical outcomes did not differ across FHH or genetic risk but cognitive precursors did. Higher FHH risk was associated with a stronger perceived T2D risk (pKendall < 0.001) and with a perception of "serious" risk (pKendall < 0.001). Genetic risk did not influence risk perception, but was correlated with an increase in perception of "serious" risk for moderate (pKendall = 0.04) and average FHH risk subjects (pKendall = 0.01), though not for the high FHH risk group. Perceived control over T2D risk was high and not affected by FHH or genetic risk. FHH appears to have a strong impact on cognitive precursors of behavior change, suggesting it could be leveraged to enhance risk counseling, particularly when lifestyle change is desirable. Genetic risk was able to alter perceptions about the seriousness of T2D risk in those with moderate and average FHH risk, suggesting that FHH could be used to selectively identify individuals who may benefit from genetic risk testing.

Clinical utility of a Web-enabled risk-assessment and clinical decision support program.

PURPOSE: Risk-stratified guidelines can improve quality of care and cost-effectiveness, but their uptake in primary care has been limited. MeTree, a Web-based, patient-facing risk-assessment and clinical decision support tool, is designed to facilitate uptake of risk-stratified guidelines. METHODS: A hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of three clinics (two intervention, one control). PARTICIPANTS: consentable nonadopted adults with upcoming appointments. PRIMARY OUTCOME: agreement between patient risk level and risk management for those meeting evidence-based criteria for increased-risk risk-management strategies (increased risk) and those who do not (average risk) before MeTree and after. MEASURES: chart abstraction was used to identify risk management related to colon, breast, and ovarian cancer, hereditary cancer, and thrombosis. RESULTS: Participants = 488, female = 284 (58.2%), white = 411 (85.7%), mean age = 58.7 (SD = 12.3). Agreement between risk management and risk level for all conditions for each participant, except for colon cancer, which was limited to those <50 years of age, was (i) 1.1% (N = 2/174) for the increased-risk group before MeTree and 16.1% (N = 28/174) after and (ii) 99.2% (N = 2,125/2,142) for the average-risk group before MeTree and 99.5% (N = 2,131/2,142) after. Of those receiving increased-risk risk-management strategies at baseline, 10.5% (N = 2/19) met criteria for increased risk. After MeTree, 80.7% (N = 46/57) met criteria. CONCLUSION: MeTree integration into primary care can improve uptake of risk-stratified guidelines and potentially reduce "overuse" and "underuse" of increased-risk services.Genet Med 18 10, 1020-1028.

Implementation of health risk assessments with family health history: barriers and benefits.

Health risk assessments provide an opportunity to emphasise health promotion and disease prevention for individuals and populations at large. A key component of health risk assessments is the detailed collection of family health history information. This information is helpful in determining risk both for common chronic conditions and more rare diseases as well. While the concept of health risk assessments has been around since the Framingham Heart Study was launched in the 1950s, and such assessments are commonly performed in the workplace today, the US healthcare system has been slow to embrace them and the emphasis on prevention that they represent. Before wider implementation of health risk assessments within healthcare can be seen, several concerns must be addressed: (1) provider impact, (2) patient impact, (3) validity of patient-entered data and (4) health outcomes effect. Here, we describe recent developments in health risk assessment design that are helping to address these issues.

Use of a patient-entered family health history tool with decision support in primary care: impact of identification of increased risk patients on genetic counseling attendance.

Several barriers inhibit collection and use of detailed family health history (FHH) in primary care. MeTree, a computer-based FHH intake and risk assessment tool with clinical decision support, was developed to overcome these barriers. Here, we describe the impact of MeTree on genetic counseling (GC) referrals and attendance. Non-adopted, English speaking adults scheduled for a well-visit in two community-based primary-care clinics were invited to participate in an Implementation-Effectiveness study of MeTree. Participants' demographic characteristics and beliefs were assessed at baseline. Immediately after an appointment with a patient for whom GC was recommended, clinicians indicated whether they referred the patient and, if not, why. The study genetic counselor kept a database of patients with a GC recommendation and contacted those with a referral. Of 542 patients completing MeTree, 156 (29 %) received a GC recommendation. Of these, 46 % (n = 72) were referred and 21 % (n = 33) underwent counseling. Patient preferences, additional clinical information unavailable to MeTree, and an incomplete clinician evaluation of the FHH accounted for the 85 patients clinicians chose not to refer. Although MeTree identified a significant proportion of patients for whom GC was recommended, persistent barriers indicate the need for improved referral processes and patient and physician education about the benefits of GC.