Literature DB >> 15941960

Behavioral consequences of testing for obesity risk.

Dominick L Frosch1, Paul Mello, Caryn Lerman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: There is considerable hope that genetic susceptibility testing will motivate behavior that can prevent or reduce the risk of complex conditions such as obesity. This study examined potential behavioral consequences of such testing.
METHODS: Participants (n = 249) were randomly assigned to review one of four vignettes that asked them to imagine that they had been tested for their risk of becoming overweight or obese. The experimental factors were test type (genetic versus hormone test) and risk level (increased versus average risk for obesity). Study measures included behavioral intentions and perceived behavioral control related to eating a healthy diet, as well as weight locus of control.
RESULTS: Participants assigned to the increased risk conditions indicated greater intentions to eat a healthy diet compared with participants assigned to the average risk conditions (P < 0.02). There were significant interaction effects of risk x perceived behavioral control (P < 0.02) and risk x weight locus of control (P < 0.003) on dietary intentions. Individuals with low perceived behavioral control or an external weight locus of control who were told to imagine they were at average risk expressed significantly lower intentions to eat a healthy diet. A three-way interaction of body mass index, family history of overweight/obesity, and assigned risk level found the greatest effects of risk feedback among those who either had a family history or a higher body mass index (P < 0.007).
CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that testing for susceptibility to obesity may motivate healthier behavior. However, some individuals may be susceptible to a false reassurance effect after receiving test results indicating a lack of increased risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15941960     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0913

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


  35 in total

1.  Learning one's genetic risk changes physiology independent of actual genetic risk.

Authors:  Bradley P Turnwald; J Parker Goyer; Danielle Z Boles; Amy Silder; Scott L Delp; Alia J Crum
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2018-12-10

2.  Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: the role of coherence.

Authors:  Linda D Cameron; Theresa M Marteau; Paul M Brown; William M P Klein; Kerry A Sherman
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2011-06-23

Review 3.  Ethical issues of predictive genetic testing for diabetes.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2009-07-01

4.  Considerations for the impact of personal genome information: a study of genomic profiling among genetics and genomics professionals.

Authors:  Julianne M O'Daniel; Susanne B Haga; Huntington F Willard
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Lost in Translation? A Comparison of Cancer-Genetics Reporting in the Press Release and its Subsequent Coverage in Lay Press.

Authors:  Jean M Brechman; Chul-Joo Lee; Joseph N Cappella
Journal:  Sci Commun       Date:  2009-06

6.  A randomized trial of the clinical utility of genetic testing for obesity: design and implementation considerations.

Authors:  Catharine Wang; Erynn S Gordon; Catharine B Stack; Ching-Ti Liu; Tricia Norkunas; Lisa Wawak; Michael F Christman; Robert C Green; Deborah J Bowen
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 2.486

7.  Is information on genetic determinants of obesity helpful or harmful for obese people?--A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Winfried Rief; Matthias Conradt; Jan-Michael Dierk; Elisabeth Rauh; Pia Schlumberger; Anke Hinney; Johannes Hebebrand
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-09-19       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  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

9.  Beliefs about the causes of breast and colorectal cancer among women in the general population.

Authors:  Catharine Wang; Suzanne M Miller; Brian L Egleston; Jennifer L Hay; David S Weinberg
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 2.506

10.  Causal beliefs about obesity and associated health behaviors: results from a population-based survey.

Authors:  Catharine Wang; Elliot J Coups
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2010-03-03       Impact factor: 6.457

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.