Search

Introduction: Perceived breast cancer risk predicts screening behaviors. However, perceived risk is often inaccurate, notably in Black women, who often underestimate their risk despite having higher disease-specific mortality rates. We examined predictors of perceived breast cancer risk, and its impact on surveillance.Methods: We used baseline data from a randomized trial including unaffected women recruited by relatives with early-onset breast cancer. Data collection occurred between 2012 and 2013. Accuracy of perceived risk was assessed by comparing perceived risk to objective lifetime breast cancer risks, calculated with the Gail and Claus models. A multivariate mixed model regression examined predictors of accuracy of perceived risk. The impact of perceived risk on breast cancer surveillance was assessed with one-way ANOVAS comparing Black to White women.Results: Among participants, 21.4% self-identified as Black and 78.6% as White. Overall, 72.9% (n=247/339), 16.2% (n=55/339), and 10.9% (n=37/339) of participants overestimated, accurately perceived, and underestimated, respectively, their lifetime breast cancer risk. Race did not predict the accuracy of risk perception. Younger participants were more likely to overestimate their risk (β=-.455; CI [-.772, -.138]; P=.005). MRI utilization was predicted by a higher objective risk (F(1,263 = 30.271; P

Uptake of community-facing family health history (FHH) tools to identify those at highest risk of disease and target prevention efforts has been consistently low. This review uses the diffusion of innovations (DOI) as a framework to organize the FHH evidence base and identify potential strategies to improve uptake of community-facing FHH tools. Methods for this literature review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We completed systematic searches in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies from 2009 to 2017 and hand searched bibliographies of relevant literature to identify additional articles. We abstracted and synthesized results, which were then organized by the DOI including the innovation–decision making process and characteristics of the innovation likely to influence diffusion (e.g., compatibility, relative advantage, complexity, trialability, observa/bility). Of the 290 unique articles identified, 65 were eligible for full-text review after title and abstract screening; a total of 27 were included in the final abstraction. Eleven unique tools were identified. The most commonly used tool was the Surgeon General’s My Family Health Portrait (n =9/27). Only six studies directly evaluated participant perceptions shown to be associated with tool uptake. Studies tended to focus on improving compatibility by customizing tools to the target population’s needs and use of educational interventions. Results from this review suggest the need to evaluate strategies to increase the pace of uptake of community-facing FHH tools. These include pragmatic trials that compare different approaches to engage and evaluate participant perceptions of the relative advantage and complexity of tools. Ancillary support strategies may include collaborations with community networks to facilitate use and implementation study designs for rigorous evaluation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12687-019-00424-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sudden cardiac death of the young (SCDY) is a devastating event for families and communities. Family history is a significant risk factor for this potentially preventable cause of death, however a complete and detailed family history is not commonly obtained during routine health maintenance visits. To estimate the proportion of adults with a family history of SCDY, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) Genomics Program included two questions within the 2007 Michigan Behavioral Risk Factor Survey (MiBRFS). Prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Among adults in Michigan, 6.3% reported a family history of SCDY, with a greater prevalence among blacks, those with lower household income, and those with less education. Among those reporting a family history of SCDY, 42.3% had at least one first-degree relative and 26.2% had multiple affected family members. This is the first study to demonstrate the prevalence of family history of SCDY while also highlighting key sociodemographic characteristics associated with increased prevalence. These findings should guide evidence-based interventions to reach those at greatest risk.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services implemented and evaluated two initiatives designed to enhance provider knowledge of patients appropriate for breast and/or ovarian cancer genetic risk assessment and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome testing. The first initiative targeted select providers who had diagnosed patients meeting HBOC risk criteria. Specifically, the initiative used 2008-2009 state cancer registry data to identify all providers who had diagnosed breast cancers in women ≤50 years of age, male breast cancers, and ovarian cancers in four health systems with newly established cancer genetics clinics. Using a method coined bidirectional reporting (BDR), reports highlighting how many of these cases each provider had seen were generated and mailed. Reports on 475 cancers (9.5% of the 5005 cases statewide meeting criteria) were sent to 69 providers with information about how and why to refer such patients for genetic counseling. Providers who received a report were contacted to assess whether the reports increased awareness or resulted in action (genetic counseling/referral). Based on the few responses received, despite multiple attempts to contact, and attrition rate, it is not possible to ascertain the impact of this initiative on providers. However the project resulted in the MDHHS identifying which providers see the largest proportion of at-risk patients, creating an opportunity to target those providers with HBOC education efforts. The second initiative involved creating and broadly disseminating an online, interactive case-based educational module to increase awareness and referral decisions for HBOC using high- and low-risk patient scenarios. A total of 1835 unique users accessed the module in a one year. Collectively the users viewed topic pages 2724 times and the interactive case studies 1369 times. Point of care tools (fact sheets) were viewed 1624 times and downloaded 764 times. Satisfaction among the subset of users applying for continuing medical education credit was high. The online educational module had a much broader reach than the bidirectional reporting initiative but to a self-selected audience. Combining targeted and broad-based provider education efforts may be a better way to increase HBOC awareness in the target audience, starting with those providers seeing the largest proportion of patients at risk.

State health departments in Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, and Utah explored the use of genomic information, including family health history, in chronic disease prevention programs. To support these explorations, the Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided cooperative agreement funds from 2003 through 2008. The 4 states’ chronic disease programs identified advocates, formed partnerships, and assessed public data; they integrated genomics into existing state plans for genetics and chronic disease prevention; they developed projects focused on prevention of asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions; and they created educational curricula and materials for health workers, policymakers, and the public. Each state’s program was different because of the need to adapt to existing culture, infrastructure, and resources, yet all were able to enhance their chronic disease prevention programs with the use of family health history, a low-tech “genomic tool.” Additional states are drawing on the experience of these 4 states to develop their own approaches.

Background The Michigan Prevention Research Center, the University of Michigan Schools of Nursing, Public Health, and Medicine, and the Michigan Department of Community Health propose a multidisciplinary academic-clinical practice three-year project to increase breast cancer screening among young breast cancer survivors and their cancer-free female relatives at greatest risk for breast cancer. Methods/design The study has three specific aims: 1) Identify and survey 3,000 young breast cancer survivors (diagnosed at 20–45 years old) regarding their breast cancer screening utilization. 2) Identify and survey survivors’ high-risk relatives regarding their breast cancer screening utilization. 3) Test two versions (Targeted vs. Enhanced Tailored) of an intervention to increase breast cancer screening among survivors and relatives. Following approval by human subjects review boards, 3,000 young breast cancer survivors will be identified through the Michigan Cancer Registry and mailed an invitation letter and a baseline survey. The baseline survey will obtain information on the survivors’: a) current breast cancer screening status and use of genetic counseling; b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening; c) family health history. Based on the family history information provided by survivors, we will identify up to two high-risk relatives per survivor. Young breast cancer survivors will be mailed consent forms and baseline surveys to distribute to their selected high-risk relatives. Relatives’ baseline survey will obtain information on their: a) current breast cancer screening status and use of genetic counseling; and b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening. Young breast cancer survivors and high-risk relatives will be randomized as a family unit to receive two versions of an intervention aiming to increase breast cancer screening and use of cancer genetic services. A follow-up survey will be mailed 9 months after the intervention to survivors and high-risk relatives to evaluate the efficacy of each intervention version on: a) use of breast cancer screening and genetic counseling; b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening; c) self-efficacy in utilizing cancer genetic and screening services; d) family support related to screening; e) knowledge of breast cancer genetics; and f) satisfaction with the intervention. Discussion The study will enhance efforts of the state of Michigan surrounding cancer prevention, control, and public health genomics. Trial registration NCT01612338

INTRODUCTION Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) plans address cancer burden at the state level through consolidation of activities and collaboration among stakeholders. Public health genomics strategies are increasingly important in prevention and treatment of cancer. The objectives of this study were to assess the extent to which CCC plans have incorporated genomics-related terms since 2005, determine which of the 3 core public health functions were fulfilled by genomics components, and identify facilitators of and barriers to integration of genomics. METHODS We reviewed 50 CCC plans in 2010 to assess use of 22 genomics-related terms. Among plans that used the term genetics or genomics, we examined the plan for inclusion of genomics-related goals, objectives, or strategies and documented the 3 core public health functions (assessment, policy development, and assurance) fulfilled by them. We surveyed plan coordinators about factors affecting incorporation of genomic strategies into plans. RESULTS Forty-seven of 50 (94%) plans included at least 1 genomics-related term. Thirty-two of 50 (64%) plans included at least 1 genomics-related goal, objective, or strategy, most encompassing the core function of assurance; 6 state plans encompassed all 3 core functions. Plan coordinators indicated that genomics is a low priority in state public health; barriers to incorporation included lack of sufficient staff and funding. CONCLUSION Incorporation of genomic terms into state CCC plans increased from 60% in 2005 to 94% in 2010, but according to plan coordinators, genomics has not grown as a priority. Identification of partnerships and resources may help increase the priority, encourage incorporation, and guide the eventual success of public health genomics in state plans. Strong partnerships with state public health departments, health care providers, and the research community are useful for integration.

Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer, accounting for approximately 3% of all colorectal cancer cases in the United States. In 2009, an evidence-based review process conducted by the independent Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group resulted in a recommendation to offer genetic testing for Lynch syndrome to all individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer, with the intent of reducing morbidity and mortality in family members. To explore issues surrounding implementation of this recommendation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary working group meeting in September 2010. This article reviews background information regarding screening for Lynch syndrome and summarizes existing clinical paradigms, potential implementation strategies, and conclusions which emerged from the meeting. It was recognized that widespread implementation will present substantial challenges, and additional data from pilot studies will be needed. However, evidence of feasibility and population health benefits and the advantages of considering a public health approach were acknowledged. Lynch syndrome can potentially serve as a model to facilitate the development and implementation of population-level programs for evidence-based genomic medicine applications involving follow-up testing of at-risk relatives. Such endeavors will require multilevel and multidisciplinary approaches building on collaborative public health and clinical partnerships.