Literature DB >> 25170902

Perceptions of genetic testing for personalized nutrition: a randomized trial of DNA-based dietary advice.

Daiva E Nielsen1, Sarah Shih, Ahmed El-Sohemy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests have facilitated easy access to personal genetic information related to health and nutrition; however, consumer perceptions of the nutritional information provided by these tests have not been evaluated. The objectives of this study were to assess individual perceptions of personalized nutrition and genetic testing and to determine whether a personalized nutrition intervention modifies perceptions.
METHODS: A double-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted among healthy men and women aged 20-35 years (n = 138). Participants in the intervention group (n = 92) were given a report of DNA-based dietary advice and those in the control group (n = 46) were given a general dietary advice report. A survey was completed at baseline and 3 and 12 months after distributing the reports to assess perceptions between the two groups.
RESULTS: No significant differences in perceptions of personalized nutrition and genetic testing were observed between the intervention and control group, so responses of both groups were combined. As compared to baseline, participant responses increased significantly toward the positive end of a Likert scale at 3 months for the statement 'I am interested in the relationship between diet and genetics' (mean change ± SD: 0.28 ± 0.99, p = 0.0002). The majority of participants indicated that a university research lab (47%) or health care professional (41%) were the best sources for obtaining accurate personal genetic information, while a DTC genetic testing company received the fewest selections (12%). Most participants (56%) considered dietitians to be the best source of personalized nutrition followed by medical doctors (27%), naturopaths (8%) and nurses (6%).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that perceptions of personalized nutrition changed over the course of the intervention. Individuals view a research lab or health care professional as better providers of genetic information than a DTC genetic testing company, and registered dietitians are considered to be the best providers of personalized nutrition advice.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25170902     DOI: 10.1159/000365508

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics        ISSN: 1661-6499


  11 in total

1.  The "Virtual Digital Twins" Concept in Precision Nutrition.

Authors:  Kalliopi Gkouskou; Ioannis Vlastos; Petros Karkalousos; Dimitrios Chaniotis; Despina Sanoudou; Aristides G Eliopoulos
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 8.701

Review 2.  The nutrition consult for recurrent stone formers.

Authors:  Kristina L Penniston
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Considerations for developing regulations for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a scoping review using the 3-I framework.

Authors:  Alexandra Cernat; Naazish S Bashir; Wendy J Ungar
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2022-02-16

4.  Enhanced long-term dietary change and adherence in a nutrigenomics-guided lifestyle intervention compared to a population-based (GLB/DPP) lifestyle intervention for weight management: results from the NOW randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Justine Horne; Jason Gilliland; Colleen O'Connor; Jamie Seabrook; Janet Madill
Journal:  BMJ Nutr Prev Health       Date:  2020-05-21

5.  Evaluating Changes in Omega-3 Fatty Acid Intake after Receiving Personal FADS1 Genetic Information: A Randomized Nutrigenetic Intervention.

Authors:  Kaitlin Roke; Kathryn Walton; Shannon L Klingel; Amber Harnett; Sanjeena Subedi; Jess Haines; David M Mutch
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 5.717

6.  Current knowledge and interest of French Canadians regarding nutrigenetics.

Authors:  Bastien Vallée Marcotte; Hubert Cormier; Véronique Garneau; Julie Robitaille; Sophie Desroches; Marie-Claude Vohl
Journal:  Genes Nutr       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 5.523

7.  Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Nutrigenetics: Findings from the 2018 Unified Forces Preventive Nutrition Conference (UFPN).

Authors:  Vered Kaufman-Shriqui; Hagit Salem; Mona Boaz; Ruth Birk
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 5.717

8.  "Right diet for the right person": a focus group study of nutritionist-dietitians' perspectives on nutritional genomics and gene-based nutrition advice.

Authors:  Jacus S Nacis; Marilou R Galang; Jason Paolo H Labrador; Milflor S Gonzales; Aurora Maria Francesca D Dablo; Diana Glades A Domalanta-Ronquillo; Victor Franco J Alfonso; Idelia G Glorioso; Marietta P Rodriguez
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-10-27

9.  Consumer adoption of personalised nutrition services from the perspective of a risk-benefit trade-off.

Authors:  Aleksandra Berezowska; Arnout R H Fischer; Amber Ronteltap; Ivo A van der Lans; Hans C M van Trijp
Journal:  Genes Nutr       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 5.523

Review 10.  Internet-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Loredana Covolo; Sara Rubinelli; Elisabetta Ceretti; Umberto Gelatti
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.