Literature DB >> 11897465

Are biomarkers useful treatment aids for promoting health behavior change? An empirical review.

Jennifer B McClure1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nearly half of the leading causes of death in our society are attributable to behavioral risk factors. As such, it is critical that we continue to develop and refine effective interventions for health behavior change. Some researchers have suggested that using biomarkers to educate individuals about their health status and disease risk may be an effective strategy to promote behavior change. This tactic is also commonly employed by healthcare providers, but its empirical support is unclear. This article reviews the research literature to determine the effectiveness of using biomarker feedback to motivate and enable health behavior change. Potential limitations of this treatment strategy and issues requiring additional research are also discussed.
METHODS: Articles were identified through PubMed (MEDLINE), PsychInfo, and the reference lists of pertinent manuscripts and book chapters.
RESULTS: Eight published, randomized trials were identified that met criteria for review. The results of this work were mixed, but suggest that biological information conveying harm exposure, disease risk, or impaired physical functioning may increase motivation to change. Subsequent behavior change is also affected by the availability and intensity of concomitant treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that combining biomarkers with appropriate behavioral treatment may enhance health behavior change, but more research in this area is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11897465     DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00425-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  25 in total

1.  Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care.

Authors:  Charles E Cunningham; Ken Deal; Heather Rimas; Heather Campbell; Ann Russell; Jennifer Henderson; Anne Matheson; Blake Melnick
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Effectiveness of a Web-Based Personalized Rheumatoid Arthritis Risk Tool With or Without a Health Educator for Knowledge of Rheumatoid Arthritis Risk Factors.

Authors:  Maria G Prado; Maura D Iversen; Zhi Yu; Rachel Miller Kroouze; Nellie A Triedman; Sarah S Kalia; Bing Lu; Robert C Green; Elizabeth W Karlson; Jeffrey A Sparks
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.794

3.  Making Sense of SNPs: Women's Understanding and Experiences of Receiving a Personalized Profile of Their Breast Cancer Risks.

Authors:  Mary-Anne Young; Laura Elenor Forrest; Victoria-Mae Rasmussen; Paul James; Gillian Mitchell; Sarah Dilys Sawyer; Katrina Reeve; Nina Hallowell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Motivate Physical Activity in Overweight and Obese Adults: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Yue Liao; Karen M Basen-Engquist; Diana L Urbauer; Therese B Bevers; Ernest Hawk; Susan M Schembre
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Putting science over supposition in the arena of personalized genomics.

Authors:  Colleen M McBride; Sharon Hensley Alford; Robert J Reid; Eric B Larson; Andreas D Baxevanis; Lawrence C Brody
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 38.330

6.  The impact of personalized risk feedback on Mexican Americans' perceived risk for heart disease and diabetes.

Authors:  Shelly R Hovick; Anna V Wilkinson; Sato Ashida; Hendrik D de Heer; Laura M Koehly
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2014-01-24

7.  Randomised controlled trial of the effects of physical activity feedback on awareness and behaviour in UK adults: the FAB study protocol [ISRCTN92551397].

Authors:  Clare Watkinson; Esther M F van Sluijs; Stephen Sutton; Theresa Marteau; Simon J Griffin
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 8.  The effectiveness of interventions to change six health behaviours: a review of reviews.

Authors:  Ruth G Jepson; Fiona M Harris; Stephen Platt; Carol Tannahill
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Testing different communication formats on responses to imagined risk of having versus missing the GSTM1 gene.

Authors:  James A Shepperd; Isaac M Lipkus; Saskia C Sanderson; Colleen M McBride; Suzanne C O'Neill; Sharron Docherty
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2012-08-13

10.  Rethinking the frequency of between-visit monitoring for patients with diabetes.

Authors:  John D Piette; James E Aikens; Ann M Rosland; Jeremy B Sussman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.