Literature DB >> 12050092

Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income.

Colleen M McBride1, Gerold Bepler, Isaac M Lipkus, Pauline Lyna, Greg Samsa, Jennifer Albright, Santanu Datta, Barbara K Rimer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Markers of genetic susceptibility to tobacco-related cancers could personalize harms of smoking and motivate cessation. Our objective was to assess whether a multicomponent intervention that included feedback about genetic susceptibility to lung cancer increased risk perceptions and rates of smoking cessation compared with a standard cessation intervention. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: Our design was a two-arm trial with eligible smokers randomized in a 1:2 ratio to Enhanced Usual Care or Biomarker Feedback (BF). Surveys were conducted at baseline, 6, and 12 months later. The setting was an inner city community health clinic. African-American patients who were current smokers (n = 557) were identified by chart abstraction and provider referral. All smokers received a self-help manual and, if appropriate, nicotine patches. Smokers in the BF arm also were offered a blood test for genotyping the GST(3) gene (GSTM1), sent a test result booklet, and called up to four times by a health educator. Prevalent abstinence was assessed by self-report of having smoked no cigarettes in the prior 7 days at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups and sustained abstinence, i.e., not smoking at either follow-up or in-between.
RESULTS: Smoking cessation was greater for the BF arm than the Enhanced Usual Care arm (19% versus 10%, respectively; P < 0.006) at 6 months but not at 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Smokers agreed to genetic feedback as part of a multicomponent cessation program. Although the program increased short-term cessation rates compared with standard intervention, genetic feedback of susceptibility may not benefit smokers with high baseline risk perceptions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12050092

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  69 in total

Review 1.  Genetic testing for lung cancer risk: if physicians can do it, should they?

Authors:  Theodore W Marcy; Michael Stefanek; Kimberly M Thompson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  A review of tobacco use treatments in U.S. ethnic minority populations.

Authors:  Lisa Sanderson Cox; Kolawole Okuyemi; Won S Choi; Jasjit S Ahluwalia
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  2011 May-Jun

3.  Risk perceptions and family history of lung cancer: differences by smoking status.

Authors:  L S Chen; K A Kaphingst
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  Direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: a case study and practical recommendations for “genomic counseling”.

Authors:  Amy C Sturm; Kandamurugu Manickam
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Introducing genetic testing for cardiovascular disease in primary care: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Jo B Middlemass; Momina F Yazdani; Joe Kai; Penelope J Standen; Nadeem Qureshi
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 6.  Impact of genetic risk assessment on nutrition-related lifestyle behaviours.

Authors:  Jacqueline A Vernarelli
Journal:  Proc Nutr Soc       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 6.297

7.  Young smokers' interpretations of the estimated lung cancer risk associated with a common genetic variant of low penetrance.

Authors:  S C Sanderson; C M McBride; S C O'Neill; S Docherty; J Shepperd; I M Lipkus
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 2.000

8.  Behavioral and psychosocial responses to genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Rachel Nusbaum; Yasmin Salehizadeh; Gillian W Hooker; Beth N Peshkin; Morgan Butrick; William Tuong; Jeena Mathew; David Goerlitz; Mary B Fishman; Peter G Shields; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Genomics       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 5.736

9.  Explaining behavior change after genetic testing: the problem of collinearity between test results and risk estimates.

Authors:  Thomas R Fanshawe; A Toby Prevost; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green; David Armstrong; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2008-09

Review 10.  Public health genomics and genetic test evaluation: the challenge of conducting behavioural research on the utility of lifestyle-genetic tests.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Jane Wardle; Steve E Humphries
Journal:  J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics       Date:  2008-08-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.