↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
53 news outlets
blogs
11 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
681 tweeters
facebook
11 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
5 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
169 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
322 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis
Published in
British Medical Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmj.i1102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gareth J Hollands, David P French, Simon J Griffin, A Toby Prevost, Stephen Sutton, Sarah King, Theresa M Marteau

Abstract

 To assess the impact of communicating DNA based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing health behaviours and motivation to engage in such behaviours.  Systematic review with meta-analysis, using Cochrane methods.  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.  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.  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.  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.  This is a revised and updated version of a Cochrane review from 2010, adding 11 studies to the seven previously identified.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 681 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 322 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 315 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 20%
Researcher 50 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 14%
Other 37 11%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Other 93 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 30%
Unspecified 48 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 43 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 10%
Psychology 26 8%
Other 77 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 893. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2019.
All research outputs
#5,314
of 13,770,766 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#148
of 45,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210
of 264,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#6
of 956 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,770,766 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45,017 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,806 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 956 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.