How does a simple enquiry compare to a detailed family history questionnaire to identify coronary heart disease or diabetic familial risk?

PURPOSE: To examine whether a simple enquiry can provide similar family history information compared with a detailed questionnaire for coronary heart disease or diabetes. METHODS: Data from two randomized controlled trials were extracted that assess the clinical value of using family history information for either coronary heart disease (ISRCTNI17943542) or diabetes risk assessment (NTR1938) in a community-based population. Outcome measures were percentage agreement, sensitivity, and specificity of self-reported family history for coronary heart disease and diabetes by means of a simple enquiry, when compared with a detailed questionnaire. RESULTS: Agreement between both family history tools was 76.8% for first-degree relatives with coronary heart disease, and 89.2% and 87.6% for first- and second-degree relatives with diabetes, respectively. The sensitivity was 44.2% for first-degree relatives with coronary heart disease, 81.9% for first-degree relatives with diabetes, and 35.4% for second-degree relatives with diabetes. Specificity was 89.3%, 97.0%, and 94.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with a detailed questionnaire, the simple enquiry correctly identified the majority of individuals classified as having no significant family history but missed a significant proportion of individuals with positive family history. Incorrect classification of family history, in particular the high false-negative rate, has implications on the utility of a simple enquiry in identifying familial risk in clinical practice.

Lay perceptions of predictive testing for diabetes based on DNA test results versus family history assessment: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed lay perceptions of issues related to predictive genetic testing for multifactorial diseases. These perceived issues may differ from the "classic" issues, e.g. autonomy, discrimination, and psychological harm that are considered important in predictive testing for monogenic disorders. In this study, type 2 diabetes was used as an example, and perceptions with regard to predictive testing based on DNA test results and family history assessment were compared. METHODS: Eight focus group interviews were held with 45 individuals aged 35-70 years with (n = 3) and without (n = 1) a family history of diabetes, mixed groups of these two (n = 2), and diabetes patients (n = 2). All interviews were transcribed and analysed using Atlas-ti. RESULTS: Most participants believed in the ability of a predictive test to identify people at risk for diabetes and to motivate preventive behaviour. Different reasons underlying motivation were considered when comparing DNA test results and a family history risk assessment. A perceived drawback of DNA testing was that diabetes was considered not severe enough for this type of risk assessment. In addition, diabetes family history assessment was not considered useful by some participants, since there are also other risk factors involved, not everyone has a diabetes family history or knows their family history, and it might have a negative influence on family relations. Respect for autonomy of individuals was emphasized more with regard to DNA testing than family history assessment. Other issues such as psychological harm, discrimination, and privacy were only briefly mentioned for both tests. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that most participants believe a predictive genetic test could be used in the prevention of multifactorial disorders, such as diabetes, but indicate points to consider before both these tests are applied. These considerations differ with regard to the method of assessment (DNA test or obtaining family history) and also differ from monogenic disorders.

Using family history information to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent diseases; a discussion of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: A family history, reflecting genetic susceptibility as well as shared environmental and behavioral factors, is an important risk factor for common chronic multifactorial diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes and many cancers. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the present paper is to discuss the evidence for the use of family history as a tool for primary prevention of common chronic diseases, in particular for tailored interventions aimed at promoting healthy lifestyles. The following questions are addressed: (1) What is the value of family history information as a determinant of personal disease risk?; (2)How can family history information be used to motivate at-risk individuals to adopt and maintain healthy lifestyles in order to prevent disease?; and (3) What additional studies are needed to assess the potential value of family history information as a tool to promote a healthy lifestyle? SUMMARY: In addition to risk assessment, family history information can be used to personalize health messages, which are potentially more effective in promoting healthy lifestyles than standardized health messages. More research is needed on the evidence for the effectiveness of such a tool.