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

Q Agricultural and Biological Sciences Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics Pub Date : 2014-01-01 Epub Date: 2014-08-22 DOI:10.1159/000365508
Daiva E Nielsen, Sarah Shih, Ahmed El-Sohemy
{"title":"Perceptions of genetic testing for personalized nutrition: a randomized trial of DNA-based dietary advice.","authors":"Daiva E Nielsen,&nbsp;Sarah Shih,&nbsp;Ahmed El-Sohemy","doi":"10.1159/000365508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":54779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics","volume":"7 2","pages":"94-104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000365508","citationCount":"49","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000365508","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/8/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 49

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对个性化营养基因检测的认识:基于dna的饮食建议的随机试验。
背景/目的:直接面向消费者(DTC)的基因检测便利了获取与健康和营养有关的个人基因信息;然而,消费者对这些测试所提供的营养信息的看法尚未得到评估。本研究的目的是评估个人对个性化营养和基因检测的看法,并确定个性化营养干预是否会改变看法。方法:采用双盲、平行组、随机对照试验,选取20 ~ 35岁健康男女138人。干预组(n = 92)的参与者获得了一份基于dna的饮食建议报告,对照组(n = 46)的参与者获得了一份一般饮食建议报告。在分发报告后的基线、3个月和12个月完成了一项调查,以评估两组之间的看法。结果:干预组和对照组对个性化营养和基因检测的认知没有显著差异,因此将两组的反应合并。与基线相比,参与者在3个月时对“我对饮食和遗传之间的关系感兴趣”的李克特量表的反应显着增加(平均变化±SD: 0.28±0.99,p = 0.0002)。大多数参与者表示,大学研究实验室(47%)或卫生保健专业人员(41%)是获得准确的个人遗传信息的最佳来源,而DTC基因检测公司的选择最少(12%)。大多数参与者(56%)认为营养师是个性化营养的最佳来源,其次是医生(27%)、自然治疗师(8%)和护士(6%)。结论:这些结果表明,在干预过程中,对个性化营养的看法发生了变化。个人认为研究实验室或卫生保健专业人员比DTC基因检测公司更能提供遗传信息,注册营养师被认为是提供个性化营养建议的最佳提供者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics
Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics GENETICS & HEREDITY-NUTRITION & DIETETICS
CiteScore
1.86
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The emerging field of nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics is rapidly gaining importance, and this new international journal has been established to meet the needs of the investigators for a high-quality platform for their research. Endorsed by the recently founded "International Society of Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics", the ‘Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics’ welcomes contributions not only investigating the role of genetic variation in response to diet and that of nutrients in the regulation of gene expression, but is also open for articles covering all aspects of gene-environment interactions in the determination of health and disease.
期刊最新文献
11th Congress of the International Society of Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics (ISNN) : Abstracts. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Ins/Del Polymorphism and Body Composition: The Intermediary Role of Hydration Status. Common Variants of Vitamin D Receptor Gene Polymorphisms and Susceptibility to Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. In utero Exposure to Germinated Brown Rice and Its GABA Extract Attenuates High-Fat-Diet-Induced Insulin Resistance in Rat Offspring. Genetic Predictors of ≥5% Weight Loss by Multidisciplinary Advice to Severely Obese Subjects.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1