Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 273–280 | Cite as

Reconsidering the family history in primary care

  • Eugene C. Rich
  • Wylie Burke
  • Caryl J. Heaton
  • Susanne Haga
  • Linda Pinsky
  • M. Priscilla Short
  • Louise Acheson


OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to review the role of the family history in predictive genetic testing, describe how family history taking is practiced in adult primary care, identify the current barriers to appropriate application of the family history, and outline the requirements for a new family history tool for primary care.

DESIGN: We reviewed current perspectives on the family history, identifying key references in the medical literature and web-based family history tools through discussions with multiple content experts in clinical genetics, family medicine, and internal medicine. We conducted a Medline query using the search terms family history and primary care to identify references from the past 10 years. To illustrate the usefulness of family history information, we calculated the predictive value of family history and genetic information for familial adenomatous polyposis using current references and standard formulas. We identified paper and web-based family history tools through discussions with content experts. We also conducted a search on the World Wide Web to identify resources for electronic medical record and family history.

RESULTS: The family history is the most important tool for diagnosis and risk assessment in medical genetics, and promises to serve as a critical element in the use of predictive genetic testing in primary care. Traditional medical education about family history has often been unsophisticated and use of family history in adult primary care has been limited, compounded by multiple substantive barriers. Although there are numerous paper and computer-based aides for taking the family history, none currently meets all the needs of adult primary care.

CONCLUSIONS: The patient’s family history remains a critical element in risk assessment for many conditions, but substantive barriers impede application in primary care practice, and evidence for its contribution to improved health outcomes is limited in this setting. Short of radical changes in reimbursement, new tools will be required to aid primary care physicians in the efficient collection and application of patient family history in the era of genetic testing.

Key Words

genetics primary care family history genetic testing medical history taking pedigree 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Evans JP, Skrzynia C, Burke W. The complexities of predictive genetic testing. BMJ. 2001;322:1052–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    GeneTests Website. Available at: Accessed May 22, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins FS, for the National Coalition for Health Professional Education in Genetics (NCHPEG). Annual Meeting. Genetics, Health Care, and NCHPEG. The Future Is Now. NCHPEG Annual Meeting, February 2002, Bethesda, Md.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collins FS, McKusick VA. Implications of the Human Genome Project for Medical Science. JAMA. 2001;285:540–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Motulsky AG. Forward In: Bennett RL. The Practical Guide to the Genetic Family History. New York, NY: Wiley-Liss; 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bennett RL. The Practical Guide to the Genetic Family History. New York, NY: Wiley-Liss; 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    GeneTests Website. Glossary. Available at: Accessed May 22, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrison’s Online. Available at: Accessed May 24, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kerber RA, Slattery ML. Comparison of self-reported and database-linked family history of cancer data in a case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;146:244–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    King TM, Tong L, Pack RJ, et al. Accuracy of family history of cancer as reported by men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2002;59:546–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hunt K, Emslie C, Watt G. Lay constructions of a family history of heart disease: potential for misunderstandings in the clinical encounter? Lancet. 2001;357:1168–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bernhardt BA, Pyeritz RE. The economics of clinical genetics services. III. Cognitive genetics services are not self-supporting. Am J Hum Genet. 1989;44:288–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2nd edn. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fuchs CS, Giovannucci EL, Colditz GA, et al. A prospective study of family history and the risk of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1669–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:594–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    American Cancer Society Website. ACS Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening Available at: Accessed August 15, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holtzman NA, Watson MS. Promoting safe and effective genetic testing in the United States. Final report of the task force on genetic testing. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yoon PW, Scheuner MT, Peterson-Oehlke KL, et al. Can family history be used as a tool for public health and preventive medicine. Genet Med. 2002;4:3004–310.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Degowin EL, Degowin RL. Bedside Diagnostic Examination. 2nd edn. New York, NY: Macmillan Co; 1969.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bruanwald E, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, et al. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 15th edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2001.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bickley LS, Hoekelman RA. Physical Examination and History Taking, 7th edn. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swartz MH. Textbook of Physical Diagnosis: History and Examination, 2nd edn. Philadelphia, Pa: W.B. Saunders Co.; 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saultz JW, ed. Textbook of Family Medicine. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rakel RE, ed. Chapter 2 in: Textbook of Family Practice. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders WB Co.; 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McGoldrick M, Gerson R, Shellenberger S. Genograms: Assessment and Intervention, 2nd edn. New York, NY: W.W. Norton; 1999:169–70.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Daly M, Farmer J, Harrop-Stein C, et al. Exploring family relationships in cancer risk counseling using the genogram. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999;8:393–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Crouch MA, Thiedke CC. Documentation of family health history in the outpatient medical record. J Fam Pract. 1986;22:169–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Acton RT, Burst NM, Casebeer L, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Alabama’s primary care physicians regarding cancer genetics. Acad Med. 2000;75:850–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hayflick SJ, Eiff MP, Carpenter L, et al. Primary care physicians’s utilization and perceptions of genetics services. Genet Med. 1998;1:13–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Medalie JH, Zyzanski SJ, Goodwin MA, et al. Two physician styles of focusing on the family. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:209–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Acheson LS, Wiesner GL, Zyzanski SJ, et al. Family history taking in community family practice: implications for genetic screening. Genet Med. 2000;2:180–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rogers J, Durkin M. The semi-structured genogram interview. I. Protocol, II. Eval Fam Sys Med. 1984;2:176–87.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Waters I, Watson W, Wetzel W. Genograms. Practical tools for family physicians. Can Fam Physician. 1994;40:282–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) Documentation Guidelines; 1997. Available at. Accessed May 31, 2002.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hoppe T, Acosta T. Internal report. Role of Family History in Coding Evaluation and Management Services, 2002. Department of Medicine. Creighton University, Omaha, Neb.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Part B News Group. E/M Bell Curve Data Book. Rockville, Md: UCG; 1999.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Medical Group Management Association, 1999. Compensation Production Survey. Englewood, Co: Medical Group Management Association; 2001.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bernhardt BA, Weiner J, Foster EC, et al. The economics of clinical genetics services. II. A time analysis of a medical genetics clinic. Am J Hum Genet. 1987;41:559–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kravitz RL, Callahan EJ, Paterniti D, et al. Prevalence and sources of patients’ unmet expectations for care. Ann Int Med. 1996;125:730–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rich EC. Whatever happened to managed care? Creighton Magazine. Winter, 2001:36–41.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Audrain J, Rimer B, Cella D, et al. Genetic counseling and testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility: What do women want? J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:133–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Watson EK, Shickle D, Qureshi N, et al. The ‘new genetics’ and primary care: GPs’ views on their role and their educational needs. Fam Pract. 1999;16:420–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fry A, Campbell H, Gudmunsdottir H, et al. GPs’ views on their role in cancer genetics services and current practice. Fam Pract. 1999;16:468–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Metcalfe S, Hurworth R, Newstead J, et al. Needs assessment study of genetics education for general practitioners in Australia. Genet Med. 2002;4:71–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bragg D, Simpson D, Treat R, Holloway R. The Genetics in Primary Care (GPC) Faculty Development Initiative Training Program: Final Evaluation Report. Submitted by the GPC External Evaluation Team from the Medical College of Wisconsin (Richard Holloway, PhD, Project Director) to the GPC Executive Committee; October 4, 2002.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    American Medical Association’s Adult Family History Form. Available at: Accessed May 22, 2002.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Oehlke KP. Documenting the Family Health History. An Overview of Available Tools. Presented at a workshop sponsored by Centers for Disease Control, Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention. Family History as a Tool for Public Health and Preventive Medicine. Decatur, Ga; May 1, 2002.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    American Academy of Family Physicians Website. Example of Blank Genogram. Available at: Accessed May 22, 2002.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Acheson LS, Stange KC, Zyzanski SJ, et al. A New Tool for Automating Family History Collection. Presented at the North American Primary Care Research Group Annual Meeting, Nova Scotia, Canada; November 15, 2001.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Physician Micro Systems, Inc(PMSI)Website Practice Partner Patient Records. Available at: Accessed May 23, 2002.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Emery J, Walton R, Murphy M, et al. Computer support for interpreting family histories of breast and ovarian cancer in primary care: comparative study with simulated cases. BMJ. 2000;321:28–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    The Programme: Primary Ob Genetic Risk Assessment and Management in MainE. Genetic Risk Screening Office Guide. Scarborough, Me: Foundation for Blood Research; 1996.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    MedRules Website. Available at: Accessed May 22, 2002.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    National Cholesterol Education Program Website, Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) Interactive Guideline Tool. Available at: Accessed May 24, 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene C. Rich
    • 7
  • Wylie Burke
    • 1
  • Caryl J. Heaton
    • 2
  • Susanne Haga
    • 3
  • Linda Pinsky
    • 4
  • M. Priscilla Short
    • 5
  • Louise Acheson
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Medical History and EthicsUniversity of WashingtonSeattle
  2. 2.Department of Family MedicineUniversity of Medicine and Dentistry, New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical SchoolNew Brunswick
  3. 3.The Center for the Advancement of GenomicsRockville
  4. 4.Department of MedicineUniversity of WashingtonSeattle
  5. 5.Office of Biomedical Science and Clinical ResearchAmerican Medical AssociationOhicago
  6. 6.the Department of Family MedicineCase Western Reserve UniversityCleveland
  7. 7.Department of MedicineCreighton UniversityOmaha

Personalised recommendations