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.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Parents' perceived vulnerability and perceived control in preventing Meningococcal C infection: a large-scale interview study about vaccination

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Parents' reported ambivalence toward large-scale vaccination programs for childhood diseases may be related to their perception of the risks of side-effects or safety of vaccination and the risk of contracting the disease. The aim of this study is to evaluate parents' perceptions of their child's risk contracting a Meningococcal C infection and parents' perceived control in preventing infection in relation to their evaluation of the safety, effectiveness and usefulness of vaccination.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a large-scale interview study, a random sample of parents was interviewed after their children had received vaccination against Meningococcal C in a catch-up campaign. Questions were asked about the perceived relative vulnerability of their child contracting an infection, perceived control in preventing an infection, and parents' evaluation of the safety, usefulness and effectiveness of vaccination.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>61% of 2910 (N = 1763) parents who were approached participated. A higher perceived relative vulnerability of their own child contracting the disease was related to a more positive evaluation of the vaccination campaign, while a lower perceived vulnerability did not result in a more negative evaluation. A higher perceived control in being able to prevent an infection was, however, related to a more critical attitude toward the safety, usefulness and effectiveness of vaccination.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Perceived relative vulnerability contracting an infection and parents' perceived control in preventing an infection seem to influence parents' evaluation of the vaccination programme. Future studies should determine if, and under which circumstances, these perceptions also affect parents' vaccination behaviour and would be relevant to be taken into account when educating parents about vaccination.</p

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

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>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.</p

The acceptability of waiting times for elective general surgery and the appropriateness of prioritising patients

BACKGROUND: Problematic waiting lists in public health care threaten the equity and timeliness of care provision in several countries. This study assesses different stakeholders' views on the acceptability of waiting lists in health care, their preferences for priority care of patients, and their judgements on acceptable waiting times for surgical patients. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted among 257 former patients (82 with varicose veins, 86 with inguinal hernia, and 89 with gallstones), 101 surgeons, 95 occupational physicians, and 65 GPs. Judgements on acceptable waiting times were assessed using vignettes of patients with varicose veins, inguinal hernia, and gallstones. RESULTS: Participants endorsed the prioritisation of patients based on clinical need, but not on ability to benefit. The groups had significantly different opinions (p < 0.05) on the use of non-clinical priority criteria and on the need for uniformity in the prioritisation process. Acceptable waiting times ranged between 2 and 25 weeks depending on the type of disorder (p < 0.001) and the severity of physical and psychosocial problems of patients (p < 0.001). Judgements were similar between the survey groups (p = 0.3) but responses varied considerably within each group depending on the individual's attitude towards waiting lists in health care (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The explicit prioritisation of patients seems an accepted means for reducing the overall burden from waiting lists. The disagreement about appropriate prioritisation criteria and the need for uniformity, however, raises concern about equity when implementing prioritisation in daily practice. Single factor waiting time thresholds seem insufficient for securing timely care provision in the presence of long waiting lists as they do not account for the different consequences of waiting between patients

What benefits and harms are important for a decision about cervical screening? A study of the perspective of different subgroups of women.

Background: In cervical screening programs, women typically receive information leaflets to support their decision about participation. However, these leaflets are often based on what experts consider important benefits and harms of screening and not what women themselves consider important to know. Objective: To identify which benefits and harms women consider important for making a decision about cervical screening. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting and participants: Women from the Dutch target group of cervical screening (N=248; 30-60 years), recruited through an online access panel. Main variables studied: Perceived importance of different benefits and harms of cervical screening, assessed through two rating items ("How important is the information about [this harm/benefit] for your decision?" and "For me it is a [benefit/harm] that participating in the screening program leads to [the benefit/harm]"), and one ranking item ("Rank the information according to their importance for your own choice"). Results: Women overall considered the benefits of cervical screening more important than the harms or disadvantages. The most important harm according to women was the chance of false positive results (M=4.88; SD=1.75). Differences between those with lower and higher numeracy/health literacy were found regarding several aspects, e.g. for the chance of false positive results, the chance of false negative results, the chance of overtreatment. Discussion and conclusion: The results suggest that leaflets could include more explicit information about false positive results

What benefits and harms are important for a decision about cervical screening? A study of the perspective of different subgroups of women.

Background: In cervical screening programs, women typically receive information leaflets to support their decision about participation. However, these leaflets are often based on what experts consider important benefits and harms of screening and not what women themselves consider important to know. Objective: To identify which benefits and harms women consider important for making a decision about cervical screening. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting and participants: Women from the Dutch target group of cervical screening (N=248; 30-60 years), recruited through an online access panel. Main variables studied: Perceived importance of different benefits and harms of cervical screening, assessed through two rating items ("How important is the information about [this harm/benefit] for your decision?" and "For me it is a [benefit/harm] that participating in the screening program leads to [the benefit/harm]"), and one ranking item ("Rank the information according to their importance for your own choice"). Results: Women overall considered the benefits of cervical screening more important than the harms or disadvantages. The most important harm according to women was the chance of false positive results (M=4.88; SD=1.75). Differences between those with lower and higher numeracy/health literacy were found regarding several aspects, e.g. for the chance of false positive results, the chance of false negative results, the chance of overtreatment. Discussion and conclusion: The results suggest that leaflets could include more explicit information about false positive results

Breast cancer patients' visual attention to information in hospital report cards: An eye-tracking study on differences between younger and older female patients

To (1) explore how women visually attend to a hospital report card (HRC), (2) explore whether visual attention of younger and older women (patients and non-patients) differs. Eye-tracking study with a short survey. Participants (N = 37) were provided with a hypothetical realistic HRC. Total dwell times and fixation counts were measured while participants viewed the information. Overall, no differences existed between younger and older women. Visual attention to the hospital of choice (vs not of choice) and to indicators perceived as most important (vs least important) did not differ. However, women with higher health literacy looked longer at the HRC than women with lower health literacy. Also, per fixation, older patients (vs younger patients) looked longer at the hospital of choice and at indicators perceived most important. Pre-existing conceptions of what information is relevant might result in more in-depth information processing among older patients than younger patients. In general, differences in level of health literacy, rather than (chronological) age, seem to be relevant to take into account when designing and/or updating HRCs

The nature and causes of unintended events reported at ten emergency departments

Background: Several studies on patient safety have shown that a substantial number of patients suffer from unintended harm caused by healthcare management in hospitals. Emergency departments (EDs) are challenging hospital settings with regard to patient safety. There is an increased sense of urgency to take effective countermeasures in order to improve patient safety. This can only be achieved if interventions tackle the dominant underlying causes. The objectives of our study are to examine the nature and causes of unintended events in EDs and the relationship between type of event and causal factor structure. Methods: Study at EDs of 10 hospitals in the Netherlands. The study period per ED was 8 to 14 weeks, in which staff were asked to report unintended events. Unintended events were broadly defined as all events, no matter how seemingly trivial or commonplace, that were unintended and could have harmed or did harm a patient. Reports were analysed with a Root Cause Analysis tool (PRISMA) by an experienced researcher. Results: 522 unintended events were reported. Of the events 25% was related to cooperation with other departments and 20% to problems with materials/equipment. More than half of the events had consequences for the patient, most often resulting in inconvenience or suboptimal care. Most root causes were human (60%), followed by organisational (25%) and technical causes (11%). Nearly half of the root causes was external, i.e. attributable to other departments in or outside the hospital. Conclusion: Event reporting gives insight into diverse unintended events. The information on unintended events may help target research and interventions to increase patient safety. It seems worthwhile to direct interventions on the collaboration between the ED and other hospital departments.