Reading Between the Lines: A Comparison of Responders and Non‐responders to a Family History Questionnaire and Implications for Cancer Genetic Counselling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family history questionnaires (FHQ) are useful tools for cancer genetic counseling, providing an informational basis for pedigree construction and individualized cancer risk assessment. Reported return rates of mailed FHQs amongst familial cancer clinics that utilize them are lower than desired however, and it is unknown whether patients perceive required completion of a FHQ as a barrier to access of cancer genetics services. This study critically evaluated the use of a mailed FHQ for all routine new patient referrals to a single hereditary cancer clinic in Quebec, Canada. Reasons for response/non-response to a FHQ and the effect of administration of a questionnaire on patients' self-reported level of motivation to pursue genetic counseling, were examined. Of 112 eligible individuals referred during the study period, 86 completed a semi-structured telephone survey; of these, 45% had returned the mailed FHQ prior to the telephone survey (Responders) and 55% had not (Non-responders). Overall, the majority of participants indicated a FHQ is an acceptable and understandable method of collecting family history information. Most prevalent reasons for not returning the FHQ were (bad) timing (56%), and difficulty accessing family history information (46%). Non-response was significantly associated with difficulty in asking relatives for the requested information (p = 0.011), and Non-responders cited fewer overall perceived benefits of cancer genetic counseling as compared with Responders (p < 0.0001). One quarter of Non-responders returned the mailed FHQ following administration of the telephone survey, suggesting implementation of a follow-up prompt is a cost-effective way to increase response.
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".