4.1 Review

Review and Comparison of Electronic Patient-Facing Family Health History Tools

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENETIC COUNSELING
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 381-391

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10897-018-0235-7

关键词

Family health history; Health IT; Patient engagement; Family history tools; Pedigree

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [5K07CA211786]
  2. Hollings Cancer Center's Cancer Center Support Grant at the Medical University of South Carolina [P30 CA138313]
  3. University of Utah Program Personalized Health Graduate Fellowship
  4. Richard A. Fay and Carol M. Fay Endowed Graduate Fellowship
  5. National Library of Medicine Training Grant [T15LM007124]
  6. Intermountain Healthcare Foundation
  7. Primary Children's Hospital Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Family health history (FHx) is one of the most important pieces of information available to help genetic counselors and other clinicians identify risk and prevent disease. Unfortunately, the collection of FHx from patients is often too time consuming to be done during a clinical visit. Fortunately, there are many electronic FHx tools designed to help patients gather and organize their own FHx information prior to a clinic visit. We conducted a review and analysis of electronic FHx tools to better understand what tools are available, to compare and contrast to each other, to highlight features of various tools, and to provide a foundation for future evaluation and comparisons across FHx tools. Through our analysis, we included and abstracted 17 patient-facing electronic FHx tools and explored these tools around four axes: organization information, family history collection and display, clinical data collected, and clinical workflow integration. We found a large number of differences among FHx tools, with no two the same. This paper provides a useful review for health care providers, researchers, and patient advocates interested in understanding the differences among the available patient-facing electronic FHx tools.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据