Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Mar 15:352:i1102.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1102.

The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis

Gareth J Hollands  1 , David P French  2 , Simon J Griffin  3 , A Toby Prevost  4 , Stephen Sutton  3 , Sarah King  1 , Theresa M Marteau  5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis

Gareth J Hollands et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To assess the impact of communicating DNA based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing health behaviours and motivation to engage in such behaviours.

Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis, using Cochrane methods.

Data sources: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 25 February 2015. Backward and forward citation searches were also conducted.

Study selection: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving adults in which one group received personalised DNA based estimates of disease risk for conditions where risk could be reduced by behaviour change. Eligible studies included a measure of risk-reducing behaviour.

Results: We examined 10,515 abstracts and included 18 studies that reported on seven behavioural outcomes, including smoking cessation (six studies; n=2663), diet (seven studies; n=1784), and physical activity (six studies; n=1704). Meta-analysis revealed no significant effects of communicating DNA based risk estimates on smoking cessation (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.35, P=0.67), diet (standardised mean difference 0.12, 95% confidence interval -0.00 to 0.24, P=0.05), or physical activity (standardised mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.08, P=0.62). There were also no effects on any other behaviours (alcohol use, medication use, sun protection behaviours, and attendance at screening or behavioural support programmes) or on motivation to change behaviour, and no adverse effects, such as depression and anxiety. Subgroup analyses provided no clear evidence that communication of a risk-conferring genotype affected behaviour more than communication of the absence of such a genotype. However, studies were predominantly at high or unclear risk of bias, and evidence was typically of low quality.

Conclusions: Expectations that communicating DNA based risk estimates changes behaviour is not supported by existing evidence. These results do not support use of genetic testing or the search for risk-conferring gene variants for common complex diseases on the basis that they motivate risk-reducing behaviour.

Systematic review registration: This is a revised and updated version of a Cochrane review from 2010, adding 11 studies to the seven previously identified.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: GJH, SJG, ATP, SS, and TMM were authors on at least one of the included studies. These authors were not involved in decisions regarding the inclusion of these studies nor in the extraction of data from these studies. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Search and screening process
None
Fig 2 Primary outcome analysis: smoking cessation; medication use
None
Fig 3 Primary outcome analysis: reduced alcohol use; sun protection behaviours. SMD=standardised mean difference
None
Fig 4 Primary outcome analysis: diet; physical activity; attendance at screening or behavioural support programmes. SMD=standardised mean difference
None
Fig 5 Assessment of risk of bias
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372:793-5. 10.1056/NEJMp1500523. 25635347. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allen NE, Sudlow C, Peakman T, Collins R. UK Biobank. UK biobank data: come and get it. Sci Transl Med 2014;6:224ed4. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008601. 24553384. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lander ES. Cutting the Gordian helix--regulating genomic testing in the era of precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1185-6. 10.1056/NEJMp1501964. 25689017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS. US National Human Genome Research Institute. A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 2003;422:835-47. 10.1038/nature01626. 12695777. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Collins F. Has the revolution arrived?Nature 2010;464:674-5. 10.1038/464674a. 20360716. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types