Promotion of cancer family history awareness: Jameslink Cancer Risk Assessment Tool at community health fairs.

This article examines the impact of providing personalized familial cancer risk assessments with the Jameslink Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. Users of the Jameslink (N = 166) at eight community health fairs completed a survey including demographic, psychosocial and behavioral variables to better understand responses to the Jameslink. No differences were found between whites and those of other races for variables of interest, indicating suitability of the Jameslink for diverse populations. Those with higher Jameslink-assessed risk had higher perceived risk of cancer. Approximately half (53.8%) reported that they would speak to their physician about their Jameslink-assessed risk. A regression found Jameslink-assessed risk, cancer worry, and perceived risk of cancer predicted intentions to speak to a physician about their risk. In addition, open-ended data provided suggestions to improve the Jameslink. Changes in content and format were suggested; however most were happy with the program and encouraged its promotion. The lack of findings for differences as a function of race bolsters the use of computerized Cancer Risk Assessment Tools in diverse communities. The positive feedback of users and the close association between cancer risk assessment, perceived risk, and intention to speak to a physician are supportive of continued use and development of Cancer Risk Assessment Tools in the community to promote awareness of cancer risk.

Cancer family history reporting: impact of method and psychosocial factors.

Family history is one the greatest risk factors for disease and one of the most important informational tools in medical genetics for the purpose of diagnosis, risk assessment, prevention and treatment. However, research is needed on the comparability of different methods of cancer family history assessment and the influence of psychosocial factors in family history reports. The purpose of this study was to determine if individuals had discrepancies between written and interview reports of cancer family history and the role of psychosocial factors in these discrepancies. Oncology patients (n=104) were administered a survey to assess psychosocial factors (i.e., information-seeking, worry, perceived risk, and health literacy) and were asked to provide family history in a written and an interview form. Randomization determined which form individuals received first. No differences in the amount of missing data or the amount of unspecified data were noted between the written and interview method. Psychosocial factors did not differentiate between those who had discrepancies in family history reports and those who did not have discrepancies in family history reports; although there was a trend for those with lower literacy and those who were blunters to be more discrepant on type of cancer diagnosis. In sum, this preliminary study indicates that written and interview methods of family history assessment for first degree relatives may be used interchangeably. The ability to use written methods will facilitate collection of basic family history information in the oncology clinic.