The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis

Gareth J Hollands, David P French, Simon J Griffin, A Toby Prevost, Stephen Sutton, Sarah King, Theresa M Marteau, Gareth J Hollands, David P French, Simon J Griffin, A Toby Prevost, Stephen Sutton, Sarah King, Theresa M Marteau

Abstract

Objective: To assess the impact of communicating DNA based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing health behaviours and motivation to engage in such behaviours.

Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis, using Cochrane methods.

Data sources: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 25 February 2015. Backward and forward citation searches were also conducted.

Study selection: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving adults in which one group received personalised DNA based estimates of disease risk for conditions where risk could be reduced by behaviour change. Eligible studies included a measure of risk-reducing behaviour.

Results: We examined 10,515 abstracts and included 18 studies that reported on seven behavioural outcomes, including smoking cessation (six studies; n=2663), diet (seven studies; n=1784), and physical activity (six studies; n=1704). Meta-analysis revealed no significant effects of communicating DNA based risk estimates on smoking cessation (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.35, P=0.67), diet (standardised mean difference 0.12, 95% confidence interval -0.00 to 0.24, P=0.05), or physical activity (standardised mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.08, P=0.62). There were also no effects on any other behaviours (alcohol use, medication use, sun protection behaviours, and attendance at screening or behavioural support programmes) or on motivation to change behaviour, and no adverse effects, such as depression and anxiety. Subgroup analyses provided no clear evidence that communication of a risk-conferring genotype affected behaviour more than communication of the absence of such a genotype. However, studies were predominantly at high or unclear risk of bias, and evidence was typically of low quality.

Conclusions: Expectations that communicating DNA based risk estimates changes behaviour is not supported by existing evidence. These results do not support use of genetic testing or the search for risk-conferring gene variants for common complex diseases on the basis that they motivate risk-reducing behaviour.

Systematic review registration: This is a revised and updated version of a Cochrane review from 2010, adding 11 studies to the seven previously identified.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: GJH, SJG, ATP, SS, and TMM were authors on at least one of the included studies. These authors were not involved in decisions regarding the inclusion of these studies nor in the extraction of data from these studies. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793156/bin/holg030916.f1_default.jpg
Fig 1 Search and screening process
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793156/bin/holg030916.f2_default.jpg
Fig 2 Primary outcome analysis: smoking cessation; medication use
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793156/bin/holg030916.f3_default.jpg
Fig 3 Primary outcome analysis: reduced alcohol use; sun protection behaviours. SMD=standardised mean difference
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793156/bin/holg030916.f4_default.jpg
Fig 4 Primary outcome analysis: diet; physical activity; attendance at screening or behavioural support programmes. SMD=standardised mean difference
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793156/bin/holg030916.f5_default.jpg
Fig 5 Assessment of risk of bias

References

    1. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372:793-5. 10.1056/NEJMp1500523. .
    1. Allen NE, Sudlow C, Peakman T, Collins R. UK Biobank. UK biobank data: come and get it. Sci Transl Med 2014;6:224ed4. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008601. .
    1. Lander ES. Cutting the Gordian helix--regulating genomic testing in the era of precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1185-6. 10.1056/NEJMp1501964. .
    1. Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS. US National Human Genome Research Institute. A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 2003;422:835-47. 10.1038/nature01626. .
    1. Collins F. Has the revolution arrived?Nature 2010;464:674-5. 10.1038/464674a. .
    1. Gramling R, Nash J, Siren K, Culpepper L. Predictive genetics in primary care: expectations for the motivational impact of genetic testing affects the importance family physicians place on screening for familial cancer risk. Genet Med 2003;5:172-5. 10.1097/. .
    1. Dzau VJ, Ginsburg GS, Van Nuys K, Agus D, Goldman D. Aligning incentives to fulfil the promise of personalised medicine. Lancet 2015;385:2118-9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60722-X. .
    1. Chen S, Chaiken S. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y, eds. Dual process theories in social psychology.Guildford Press, 1999: 73-96.
    1. Bates BR, Templeton A, Achter PJ, Harris TM, Condit CM. What does “a gene for heart disease” mean? A focus group study of public understandings of genetic risk factors. Am J Med Genet A 2003;119A:156-61. 10.1002/ajmg.a.20113. .
    1. Shiloh S, Rashuk-Rosenthal D, Benyamini Y. Illness causal attributions: an exploratory study of their structure and associations with other illness cognitions and perceptions of control. J Behav Med 2002;25:373-94. 10.1023/A:1015818532390. .
    1. Senior V, Marteau TM, Weinman J. Impact of genetic testing on causal models of heart disease and arthritis: An analogue study. Psychol Health 2000;14:1077-88. 10.1080/08870440008407368. .
    1. Milne S, Sheeran P, Orbell S. Prediction and intervention in health-related behavior: A meta-analytic review of protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol 2000;30:106-43.10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02308.x. .
    1. McClure JB. Are biomarkers useful treatment aids for promoting health behavior change? An empirical review. Am J Prev Med 2002;22:200-7. 10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00425-1. .
    1. Bize R, Burnand B, Mueller Y, Rège-Walther M, Camain JY, Cornuz J. Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD004705..
    1. Broadstock M, Michie S, Marteau T. Psychological consequences of predictive genetic testing: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 2000;8:731-8. 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200532. .
    1. Meiser B. Psychological impact of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: an update of the literature. Psychooncology 2005;14:1060-74. 10.1002/pon.933. .
    1. Beery TA, Williams JK. Risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following genetic testing for adult-onset disorders. Genet Test 2007;11:111-23. 10.1089/gte.2006.0527. .
    1. Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Wells PS. A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med 2008;10:19-32. 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815f524f. .
    1. Scheuner MT, Sieverding P, Shekelle PG. Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. JAMA 2008;299:1320-34. 10.1001/jama.299.11.1320. .
    1. de Viron S, Van der Heyden J, Ambrosino E, Arbyn M, Brand A, Van Oyen H. Impact of genetic notification on smoking cessation: systematic review and pooled-analysis. PLoS One 2012;7:e40230. 10.1371/journal.pone.0040230. .
    1. Smerecnik C, Grispen JE, Quaak M. Effectiveness of testing for genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases on smoking cessation outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Control 2012;21:347-54. 10.1136/tc.2011.042739. .
    1. Fanshawe TR, Prevost AT, Roberts JS, Green RC, Armstrong D, Marteau TM. Explaining behavior change after genetic testing: the problem of collinearity between test results and risk estimates. Genet Test 2008;12:381-6. 10.1089/gte.2007.0103. .
    1. Burke W, Khoury MJ, Stewart A, Zimmern RL. Bellagio Group. The path from genome-based research to population health: development of an international public health genomics network. Genet Med 2006;8:451-8. 10.1097/01.gim.0000228213.72256.8c. .
    1. Hollands GJ, Hankins M, Marteau TM. Visual feedback of individuals’ medical imaging results for changing health behaviour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(1):CD007434..
    1. Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ, et al. Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(10):CD007275..
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2.The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009.
    1. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401-6. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015. .
    1. Audrain J, Boyd NR, Roth J, Main D, Caporaso NF, Lerman C. Genetic susceptibility testing in smoking-cessation treatment: one-year outcomes of a randomized trial. Addict Behav 1997;22:741-51. 10.1016/S0306-4603(97)00060-9. .
    1. Lerman C, Gold K, Audrain J, et al. Incorporating biomarkers of exposure and genetic susceptibility into smoking cessation treatment: effects on smoking-related cognitions, emotions, and behavior change. Health Psychol 1997;16:87-99. 10.1037/0278-6133.16.1.87. .
    1. Chao S, Roberts JS, Marteau TM, Silliman R, Cupples LA, Green RC. Health behavior changes after genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: The REVEAL Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2008;22:94-7. 10.1097/WAD.0b013e31815a9dcc. .
    1. Glanz K, Volpicelli K, Kanetsky PA, et al. Melanoma genetic testing, counseling, and adherence to skin cancer prevention and detection behaviors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013;22:607-14. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1174. .
    1. Godino JG, van Sluijs EM, Marteau TM, Sutton S, Sharp SJ, Griffin SJ. Effect of communicating genetic and phenotypic risk for type 2 diabetes in combination with lifestyle advice on objectively measured physical activity: protocol of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2012;12:444. 10.1186/1471-2458-12-444. .
    1. Grant RW, O’Brien KE, Waxler JL, et al. Personalized genetic risk counseling to motivate diabetes prevention: a randomized trial. Diabetes Care 2013;36:13-9. 10.2337/dc12-0884. .
    1. Hendershot CS, Otto JM, Collins SE, Liang T, Wall TL. Evaluation of a brief web-based genetic feedback intervention for reducing alcohol-related health risks associated with ALDH2. Ann Behav Med 2010;40:77-88. 10.1007/s12160-010-9207-3. .
    1. Hietaranta-Luoma HL, Tahvonen R, Iso-Touru T, Puolijoki H, Hopia A. An intervention study of individual, apoE genotype-based dietary and physical-activity advice: impact on health behavior. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2014;7:161-74. 10.1159/000371743. .
    1. Hishida A, Terazawa T, Mamiya T, et al. Efficacy of genotype notification to Japanese smokers on smoking cessation--an intervention study at workplace. Cancer Epidemiol 2010;34:96-100. 10.1016/j.canep.2009.11.008. .
    1. Hollands GJ, Whitwell SCL, Parker RA, et al. Effect of communicating DNA based risk assessments for Crohn’s disease on smoking cessation: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2012;345:e4708. 10.1136/bmj.e4708. .
    1. Whitwell SC, Mathew CG, Lewis CM, et al. Trial Protocol: Communicating DNA-based risk assessments for Crohn’s disease: a randomised controlled trial assessing impact upon stopping smoking. BMC Public Health 2011;11:44. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-44. .
    1. Ito H, Matsuo K, Wakai K, et al. An intervention study of smoking cessation with feedback on genetic cancer susceptibility in Japan. Prev Med 2006;42:102-8. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2005.10.006. .
    1. Komiya Y, Nakao H, Kuroda Y, Arizono K, Nakahara A, Katoh T. Application of aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH2) genetic diagnosis in support of decreasing alcohol intake. J Occup Health 2006;48:161-5. 10.1539/joh.48.161. .
    1. Marteau T, Senior V, Humphries SE, et al. Genetic Risk Assessment for FH Trial Study Group. Psychological impact of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia within a previously aware population: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med Genet A 2004;128A:285-93. 10.1002/ajmg.a.30102. .
    1. McBride CM, Bepler G, Lipkus IM, et al. Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:521-8..
    1. Meisel SF, Beeken RJ, van Jaarsveld CHM, Wardle J. Genetic susceptibility testing and readiness to control weight: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2015;23:305-12. 10.1002/oby.20958. .
    1. Meisel SF, Beeken RJ, van Jaarsveld CH, Wardle J. Genetic test feedback with weight control advice: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2012;13:235. 10.1186/1745-6215-13-235. .
    1. Nielsen DE, El-Sohemy A. Disclosure of genetic information and change in dietary intake: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 2014;9:e112665. 10.1371/journal.pone.0112665. .
    1. Sanderson SC, Humphries SE, Hubbart C, Hughes E, Jarvis MJ, Wardle J. Psychological and behavioural impact of genetic testing smokers for lung cancer risk: a phase II exploratory trial. J Health Psychol 2008;13:481-94. 10.1177/1359105308088519. .
    1. Voils CI, Coffman CJ, Grubber JM, et al. Does Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Testing and Counseling Reduce Modifiable Risk Factors? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Veterans. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:1591-8. 10.1007/s11606-015-3315-5. .
    1. Voils CI, Coffman CJ, Edelman D, et al. Examining the impact of genetic testing for type 2 diabetes on health behaviors: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2012;13:121. 10.1186/1745-6215-13-121. .
    1. Weinberg DS, Myers RE, Keenan E, et al. Genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening in an average-risk population: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2014;161:537-45. 10.7326/M14-0765. .
    1. Myers RE, Manne SL, Wilfond B, et al. A randomized trial of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) for colorectal cancer risk in primary care: trial design and baseline findings. Contemp Clin Trials 2011;32:25-31. 10.1016/j.cct.2010.08.013. .
    1. West R, Hajek P, Stead L, Stapleton J. Outcome criteria in smoking cessation trials: proposal for a common standard. Addiction 2005;100:299-303. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00995.x. .
    1. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med 2011;364:524-34. 10.1056/NEJMoa1011893. .
    1. Marteau TM, Weinman J. Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Soc Sci Med 2006;62:1360-8. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.005. .
    1. Evans JP, Meslin EM, Marteau TM, Caulfield T. Genomics. Deflating the genomic bubble. Science 2011;331:861-2. 10.1126/science.1198039. .
    1. Academy of Medical Sciences. Realising the potential of stratified medicine.Academy of Medical Sciences, 2013.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다