Routine family history inquiry among family physicians: associations with perceived clinical usefulness and barriers: a cross-sectional study

OpenAlex İngilizce

Objective Family history is a core component of individualized risk assessment in primary care, particularly for cardiovascular disease, hypercholesterolemia, and cancer; however, it is not always routinely obtained in everyday practice. This study aimed to describe family physicians’ self-reported family history inquiry behavior and to examine its associations with perceived clinical usefulness, perceived barriers, and inquiry into selected heritable conditions. Materials and methods This cross-sectional, self-administered online survey included 257 family physicians practicing in primary care in Türkiye. The questionnaire assessed the frequency of family history inquiry, perceived clinical usefulness, perceived barriers, and the extent of inquiry into selected heritable conditions. Two author-developed Likert-type scales were used as exploratory composite measures. Non-parametric tests, chi-square analyses, Spearman’s correlation analysis, and univariable binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Results Routine family history inquiry was self-reported as being performed frequently by 55.3% of participants and occasionally by 41.2%. Higher perceived clinical usefulness scores were associated with more frequent self-reported inquiry. Perceived clinical usefulness and perceived barriers showed a moderate positive correlation (Spearman’s rho = 0.341, p < 0.001). In the logistic regression analysis, perceived clinical usefulness remained associated with frequent rather than occasional self-reported family history inquiry (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.01–1.83, p = 0.045). Conclusion In this cross-sectional survey of family physicians, more frequent self-reported routine family history inquiry was associated with a higher perceived clinical usefulness of family history information. These findings indicate self-reported behavior and perceived utility and should not be interpreted as evidence of causal effects or measured effects on clinical decision-making outcomes.