All in the Family: Barriers and Motivators to the Use of Cancer Family History Questionnaires and the Impact on Attendance Rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data has demonstrated that family history questionnaires (FHQs) are an invaluable tool for assessing familial cancer risk and triaging patients for genetic counseling services. Despite their benefits, return rates of mailed FHQs from newly referred patients remain low, suggesting potential barriers to their use. To investigate this, a total of 461 participants, 239 who completed a FHQ (responders) and 222 who did not (non-responders), were surveyed at a subsequent appointment regarding potential barriers and motivators to using the FHQ. With respective rates of 51 and 56 %, there was no significant difference in the proportion of responders and non-responders who reported difficulty in completing the FHQ; however, for both groups factors related to family dynamics (large family size, lack of contact with relatives, and lack of knowledge of family history) were reported as major variables confounding completion of the FHQ. Responders were also significantly more likely to have a personal diagnosis of cancer (p = 0.02) and to report that their physician had discussed the reason for the appointment with them (p = 0.01). Overall, 19 % of non-responders returned their FHQ after being mailed an appointment letter and 67 % attended their scheduled genetic counseling appointment. These findings demonstrate that difficulty completing the FHQ is not inherent to its design but due to difficulty accessing one's family history, and that mailed appointment letters are a highly successful way to increase attendance rates in the non-responder population. Furthermore, these results demonstrate the important role that referring physicians play in the utilization of genetic counseling services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".