Megan A McVay1, Christopher Beadles2, Ryanne Wu3, Janet Grubber2, Cynthia J Coffman4, William S Yancy3, Isaac Lipkus Reiner5, Corrine I Voils3. 1. Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: megan.mcvay@va.gov. 2. Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 5. School of Nursing, Duke University Medical center, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined effects of providing type 2 diabetes genetic risk feedback on controllability perceptions. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial in which overweight/obese Veterans Affairs patients without diabetes receivedconventional type 2 diabetes risk counseling that included either (1) personalized diabetes genetic risk feedback (genetic risk arm) or (2) eye disease counseling (comparison arm). Perceived diabetes control, and dietary and physical activity self-efficacy were compared between study arms, and between the comparison arm and each of 3 DNA-based genetic risk levels. RESULTS:Participants (N=531) were predominately male, middle-age, and African American. Immediately post-counseling, perceived diabetes control was higher for the genetic risk arm (risk levels combined) than the comparison arm (p=0.005). In analyses by genetic risk levels, low genetic risk participants reported higher perceived diabetes control than comparison participants (p=0.007). Immediately post-counseling, low genetic risk participants reported higher dietary self-efficacy in situations when mood is negative compared with controls(p=0.01). At 3 months, no differences in constructs were observed. CONCLUSION: Genetic risk feedback for diabetes has temporary effects on perceived controllability among patients with low genetic risk. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians and other stakeholders should consider the limited effects on behavior change of diabetes genetic risk feedback.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We examined effects of providing type 2 diabetes genetic risk feedback on controllability perceptions. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial in which overweight/obese Veterans Affairspatients without diabetes received conventional type 2 diabetes risk counseling that included either (1) personalized diabetes genetic risk feedback (genetic risk arm) or (2) eye disease counseling (comparison arm). Perceived diabetes control, and dietary and physical activity self-efficacy were compared between study arms, and between the comparison arm and each of 3 DNA-based genetic risk levels. RESULTS:Participants (N=531) were predominately male, middle-age, and African American. Immediately post-counseling, perceived diabetes control was higher for the genetic risk arm (risk levels combined) than the comparison arm (p=0.005). In analyses by genetic risk levels, low genetic risk participants reported higher perceived diabetes control than comparison participants (p=0.007). Immediately post-counseling, low genetic risk participants reported higher dietary self-efficacy in situations when mood is negative compared with controls(p=0.01). At 3 months, no differences in constructs were observed. CONCLUSION: Genetic risk feedback for diabetes has temporary effects on perceived controllability among patients with low genetic risk. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians and other stakeholders should consider the limited effects on behavior change of diabetes genetic risk feedback.
Authors: Otto Halmesvaara; Marleena Vornanen; Helena Kääriäinen; Markus Perola; Kati Kristiansson; Hanna Konttinen Journal: Front Genet Date: 2022-05-30 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Ingrid S Følling; Marit Solbjør; Kristian Midthjell; Bård Kulseng; Anne-S Helvik Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.295