"The panel recognized that family history has an important role in the practice of medicineand may motivate positive lifestyle changes, enhance individual empowerment, and influenceclinical interventions. The panel found that it is unclear how this information can be effectivelygathered and used in the primary care setting for common diseases."
Well ladies and gentlemen. I can give you all sorts of anecdotal evidence. That being said, we are evidence driven creatures, so I suggest you give me a call and we set up studies in Primary Care practices with different family history tools.
Things such as the "SCREEN" screen versus a detailed 3 generation pedigree versus 1st generation.
It is pretty easy and inexpensive to set these studies up if you use current technologies.
What else did the panel say?
"For a systematically collected family history for common diseases to become an evidence-based tool in primary care clinical settings, substantial additional research will be needed."
I agree, it is time we develop these tools as multifactorial shotguns which hit lots of targets.This IS what DTC is arguing that there puny little scans do. Without evidence Family History champions like myself run the risk of sounding like the marketing hacks out in Silicon Valley and PR firms like NYC.
We should attack this one precisely the same way. Start by each individual risk calculator ADD family history and see what it does.
Then do a cohort study of practices which routinely perform 3 generation pedigrees and see how the incidence of diseases like diabetes, HTN and MI shake out.
That could be done over 5-10 years. Not a long wait to get some great evidence, if you ask me.
The Sherpa Says: The evidence may be weak for Family History as a Poly-Tool. But as a clinical marker in certain diseases it is ESSENTIAL.
The NIH conference on Family History came and went.
What were we left with?
A Consensus Statement.
What is the crux of it?
"The panel recognized that family history has an important role in the practice of medicineand may motivate positive lifestyle changes, enhance individual empowerment, and influenceclinical interventions. The panel found that it is unclear how this information can be effectivelygathered and used in the primary care setting for common diseases."
Well ladies and gentlemen. I can give you all sorts of anecdotal evidence. That being said, we are evidence driven creatures, so I suggest you give me a call and we set up studies in Primary Care practices with different family history tools.
Things such as the "SCREEN" screen versus a detailed 3 generation pedigree versus 1st generation.
It is pretty easy and inexpensive to set these studies up if you use current technologies.
What else did the panel say?
"For a systematically collected family history for common diseases to become an evidence-based tool in primary care clinical settings, substantial additional research will be needed."
I agree, it is time we develop these tools as multifactorial shotguns which hit lots of targets.This IS what DTC is arguing that there puny little scans do. Without evidence Family History champions like myself run the risk of sounding like the marketing hacks out in Silicon Valley and PR firms like NYC.
That being said there are some evidence tools where Family History helps clinical classification. I think specifically of theReynolds Risk and how it beat the Framingham
We should attack this one precisely the same way. Start by each individual risk calculator ADD family history and see what it does.
Then do a cohort study of practices which routinely perform 3 generation pedigrees and see how the incidence of diseases like diabetes, HTN and MI shake out.
That could be done over 5-10 years. Not a long wait to get some great evidence, if you ask me.
The Sherpa Says: The evidence may be weak for Family History as a Poly-Tool. But as a clinical marker in certain diseases it is ESSENTIAL.