Using web-based familial risk information for diabetes prevention: a randomized controlled trial.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that family history information may be effective in motivating people to adopt health promoting behaviour. The aim was to determine if diabetic familial risk information by using a web-based tool leads to improved self-reported risk-reducing behaviour among individuals with a diabetic family history, without causing false reassurance among those without a family history. METHODS: An online sample of 1,174 healthy adults aged 35-65 years with a BMI ? 25 was randomized into two groups receiving an online diabetes risk assessment. Both arms received general tailored diabetes prevention information, whilst the intervention arm also received familial risk information after completing a detailed family history questionnaire. Separate analysis was performed for four groups (family history group: 286 control versus 288 intervention group; no family history: 269 control versus 266 intervention group). Primary outcomes were self-reported behavioural outcomes: fat intake, physical activity, and attitudes towards diabetes testing. Secondary outcomes were illness and risk perceptions. RESULTS: For individuals at familial risk there was no overall intervention effect on risk-reducing behaviour after three months, except for a decrease in self-reported saturated fat intake among low-educated individuals (Beta (b) -1.01, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.00). Familial risk information resulted in a decrease of diabetes risk worries (b -0.21, -0.40 to -0.03). For individuals without family history no effect was found on risk-reducing behaviour and perceived risk. A detailed family history assessment resulted in a greater percentage of individuals reporting a familial risk for diabetes compared to a simple enquiry. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based familial risk information reduced worry related to diabetes risk and decreased saturated fat intake of those at greatest need of preventative care. However, the intervention was not effective for the total study population on improving risk-reducing behaviour. The emphasis on familial risk does not seem to result in false reassurance among individuals without family history. Additionally, a detailed family history questionnaire identifies more individuals at familial risk than a simple enquiry. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR1938.
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the potential effectiveness of communicating familial risk of diabetes on illness perceptions and self-reported behavioral outcomes.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>Individuals with a family history of diabetes were randomized to receive risk information based on familial and general risk factors (n = 59) or general risk factors alone (n = 59). Outcomes were assessed using questionnaires at baseline, 1 week, and 3 months.<h4>Results</h4>Compared with individuals receiving general risk information, those receiving familial risk information perceived heredity to be a more important cause of diabetes (P < 0.01) at 1-week follow-up, perceived greater control over preventing diabetes (P < 0.05), and reported having eaten more healthily (P = 0.01) after 3 months. Behavioral intentions did not differ between the groups.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Communicating familial risk increased personal control and, thus, did not result in fatalism. Although the intervention did not influence intentions to change behavior, there was some evidence to suggest it increases healthy behavior.
Project description:Lifestyle intervention may reduce the development of type 2 diabetes among high-risk individuals. The aim of this study was to explore how older adults perceived their own lifestyle and being at increased risk for type 2 diabetes while they participated in a lifestyle intervention programme.A nested qualitative study was performed with 26 participants (mean age 68 years) in the VEND-RISK Study. Participants had previously participated in the HUNT3 Study and the HUNT DE-PLAN Study, where their risk for developing type 2 diabetes (FIND-RISC ? 15) had been identified. The data were analysed using systematic text condensation.Two main themes were identified. The first theme was having resources available for an active lifestyle, which included having a family and being part of a social network, having a positive attitude toward life, and maintaining established habits from childhood to the present. The second theme was being at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, which included varied reactions to the information on increased risk, how lifestyle intervention raised awareness about risk behaviour, and health-related worries and ambitions as type 2 diabetes prevention.Assessing a participant's resources could improve the outcomes of lifestyle intervention programmes. Both family history and risk perception could be used in preventive strategies to enhance changes in lifestyle.The VEND-RISK Study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on April 26, 2010, with the registration number NCT01135901 .
Project description:To evaluate perceived risk, control, worry, and severity about diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke among individuals at increased familial risk of diabetes.Data analyses were based on the Family Healthware™ Impact Trial. Baseline health beliefs were compared across three groups: (1) no family history of diabetes, CHD or stroke (n=836), (2) family history of diabetes alone (n=267), and (3) family history of diabetes and CHD and/or stroke (n=978).After adjusting for age, gender, race, education and BMI, scores for perceived risk for diabetes (p<0.0001), CHD (p<0.0001) and stroke (p<0.0001) were lowest in Group 1 and highest in Group 3. Similar results were observed about worry for diabetes (p<0.0001), CHD (p<0.0001) and stroke (p<0.0001). Perceptions of control or severity for diabetes, CHD or stroke did not vary across the three groups.Among individuals at increased familial risk for diabetes, having family members affected with CHD and/or stroke significantly influenced perceived risk and worry. Tailored lifestyle interventions for this group that assess health beliefs and emphasize approaches for preventing diabetes, as well as its vascular complications, may be an effective strategy for reducing the global burden of these serious but related chronic disorders.
Project description:We aimed to investigate the influence of positive family history (FH+) of diabetes and 19 known genetic risk loci on the effectiveness of lifestyle changes and their predictive value on the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS).A total of 522 subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) were randomized into the control (n = 257) and intervention (n = 265) groups. The mean follow-up was 6.2 years (median 7 years), and the lifestyle intervention, aimed at weight reduction, healthy diet, and increased physical activity, lasted for 4 years (range 1-6 years). An oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and assessment of basic clinical variables were performed annually.The effect of intervention on the incidence of diabetes was almost similar in subjects with FH+ compared with subjects with a negative family history (FH-) of diabetes during the entire follow-up. In the Cox model, including FH, genetic risk SNPs, and randomization group, and adjusted for the effects of age, sex, BMI, and study center, only lifestyle intervention had a significant effect (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.75, P < 0.001) on the incidence of diabetes. Further analyses showed that in addition to the baseline glucose and insulin values, 1-year changes in 2-h glucose and 2-h insulin achieved by lifestyle intervention had a significant effect on the incidence of diabetes.These results emphasize the effectiveness of lifestyle intervention in reducing the risk of diabetes in high-risk individuals independently of genetic or familial risk of type 2 diabetes.
Project description:Most diabetes is polygenic in etiology, with (type 1 diabetes, T1DM) or without (type 2 diabetes, T2DM) an autoimmune basis. Genetic counseling for diabetes generally focuses on providing empiric risk information based on family history and/or the effects of maternal hyperglycemia on pregnancy outcome. An estimated one to five percent of diabetes is monogenic in nature, e.g., maturity onset diabetes of the young (MODY), with molecular testing and etiology-based treatment available. However, recent studies show that most monogenic diabetes is misdiagnosed as T1DM or T2DM. While efforts are underway to increase the rate of diagnosis in the diabetes clinic, genetic counselors and clinical geneticists are in a prime position to identify monogenic cases through targeted questions during a family history combined with working in conjunction with diabetes professionals to diagnose and assure proper treatment and familial risk assessment for individuals with monogenic diabetes.
Project description:AIMS:Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a multifactorial disease, in which complement-mediated inflammation plays a pivotal role. A positive family history is an important risk factor for developing AMD. Certain lifestyle factors are shown to be significantly associated with AMD in non-familial cases, but not in familial cases. This study aimed to investigate whether the contribution of common genetic variants and complement activation levels differs between familial and sporadic cases with AMD. METHODS AND RESULTS:1216 AMD patients (281 familial and 935 sporadic) and 1043 controls (143 unaffected members with a family history of AMD and 900 unrelated controls without a family history of AMD) were included in this study. Ophthalmic examinations were performed, and lifestyle and family history were documented with a questionnaire. Nine single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) known to be associated with AMD were genotyped, and serum concentrations of complement components C3 and C3d were measured. Associations were assessed in familial and sporadic individuals. The association with risk alleles of the age-related maculopathy susceptibility 2 (ARMS2) gene was significantly stronger in sporadic AMD patients compared to familial cases (p = 0.017 for all AMD stages and p = 0.003 for advanced AMD, respectively). ARMS2 risk alleles had the largest effect in sporadic cases but were not significantly associated with AMD in densely affected families. The C3d/C3 ratio was a significant risk factor for AMD in sporadic cases and may also be associated with familial cases. In patients with a densely affected family this effect was particularly strong with ORs of 5.37 and 4.99 for all AMD and advanced AMD respectively. CONCLUSION:This study suggests that in familial AMD patients, the common genetic risk variant in ARMS2 is less important compared to sporadic AMD. In contrast, factors leading to increased complement activation appear to play a larger role in patients with a positive family history compared to sporadic patients. A better understanding of the different contributions of risk factors in familial compared to non-familial AMD will aid the development of reliable prediction models for AMD, and may provide individuals with more accurate information regarding their individual risk for AMD. This information is especially important for individuals who have a positive family history for AMD.
Project description:BACKGROUND: This study assessed lay perceptions of issues related to predictive genetic testing for multifactorial diseases. These perceived issues may differ from the "classic" issues, e.g. autonomy, discrimination, and psychological harm that are considered important in predictive testing for monogenic disorders. In this study, type 2 diabetes was used as an example, and perceptions with regard to predictive testing based on DNA test results and family history assessment were compared. METHODS: Eight focus group interviews were held with 45 individuals aged 35-70 years with (n = 3) and without (n = 1) a family history of diabetes, mixed groups of these two (n = 2), and diabetes patients (n = 2). All interviews were transcribed and analysed using Atlas-ti. RESULTS: Most participants believed in the ability of a predictive test to identify people at risk for diabetes and to motivate preventive behaviour. Different reasons underlying motivation were considered when comparing DNA test results and a family history risk assessment. A perceived drawback of DNA testing was that diabetes was considered not severe enough for this type of risk assessment. In addition, diabetes family history assessment was not considered useful by some participants, since there are also other risk factors involved, not everyone has a diabetes family history or knows their family history, and it might have a negative influence on family relations. Respect for autonomy of individuals was emphasized more with regard to DNA testing than family history assessment. Other issues such as psychological harm, discrimination, and privacy were only briefly mentioned for both tests. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that most participants believe a predictive genetic test could be used in the prevention of multifactorial disorders, such as diabetes, but indicate points to consider before both these tests are applied. These considerations differ with regard to the method of assessment (DNA test or obtaining family history) and also differ from monogenic disorders.
Project description:Knowing family history is important for understanding cancer risk, yet communication within families is suboptimal. Providing strategies to enhance communication may be useful.Four hundred ninety women were recruited from urban, safety-net, hospital-based primary care women's health clinics. Participants were randomized to receive the KinFact intervention or the control handout on lowering risks for breast/colon cancer and screening recommendations. Cancer family history was reviewed with all participants. The 20-minute KinFact intervention, based in communication and behavior theory, included reviewing individualized breast/colon cancer risks and an interactive presentation about cancer and communication. Study outcomes included whether participants reported collecting family history, shared cancer risk information with relatives, and the frequency of communication with relatives. Data were collected at baseline, 1, 6, and 14 months.Overall, intervention participants were significantly more likely to gather family cancer information at follow-up (odds ratio [OR]: 2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.01, 3.71) and to share familial cancer information with relatives (OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.37, 2.48). Communication frequency (1=not at all; 4=a lot) was significantly increased at follow-up (1.67 vs. 1.54). Differences were not modified by age, race, education, or family history. However, effects were modified by pregnancy status and genetic literacy. Intervention effects for information gathering and frequency were observed for nonpregnant women but not for pregnant women. Additionally, intervention effects were observed for information gathering in women with high genetic literacy, but not in women with low genetic literacy.The KinFact intervention successfully promoted family communication about cancer risk. Educating women to enhance their communication skills surrounding family history may allow them to partner more effectively with their families and ultimately their providers in discussing risks and prevention.
Project description:BACKGROUND: A strong family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) confers increased DM risk. This survey analysis determined whether patients who were informed by their doctors of familial DM risk acknowledged that risk and took steps to reduce it. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of the National Health Styles 2004 mail survey. All non-diabetic participants who responded to the question of whether their doctor had or had not informed them of their familial DM risk (n = 3,323) were compared for their risk-reducing behaviour and attitude to DM risk. RESULTS: Forty-one percent (n = 616) of the question responders that had DM family histories were informed by their doctors of their familial risk; the chance of being informed increased with the number of relatives that had the disease. Members of the informed group were more likely than those in the non-informed group to report lifestyle changes to prevent DM (odds ratio [OR] 4.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.5-5.2) and being tested for DM (OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.4-3.6), although no significant improvement occurred in their U.S.-recommended exercise activity (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-1.1). Overall, informed responders recognised both their familial and personal DM risk; most discussed diabetes with their family (69%), though less so with friends (42%); however, 44% of them still did not consider themselves to be at risk. CONCLUSION: Responders who were informed by their doctors of being at familial DM risk reported greater incidences of lifestyle changes, DM screening, and awareness of risk than non-informed responders. Doctors were more likely to inform patients with stronger DM family histories. Identifying this higher risk group, either in isolation or in combination with other recognised risk factors, offers doctors the opportunity to target limited health promotion resources efficiently for primary DM prevention.