Effect of communicating genetic and phenotypic risk for type 2 diabetes in combination with lifestyle advice on objectively measured physical activity: protocol of a randomised controlled trial

BMC Public Health

Simon J Griffin²  Stephen J Sharp²  Stephen Sutton¹  Theresa M Marteau³  Esther MF van Sluijs²  Job G Godino² 

[1] Behavioural Science Group, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, CB2 0SR, Cambridge, UK;MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Box 285, CB2 0QQ, Cambridge, UK;Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, CB2 0SR, Cambridge, UK

关键词: Protocol;    Randomised controlled trial;    Behaviour;    Physical activity;    Type 2 diabetes;    Communication;    Risk;    Phenotypic;    Genetic;   

Others  :  1163531
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-444

 received in 2012-05-29, accepted in 2012-05-30,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with increased risk of morbidity and premature mortality. Among those at high risk, incidence can be halved through healthy changes in behaviour. Information about genetic and phenotypic risk of T2D is now widely available. Whether such information motivates behaviour change is unknown. We aim to assess the effects of communicating genetic and phenotypic risk of T2D on risk-reducing health behaviours, anxiety, and other cognitive and emotional theory-based antecedents of behaviour change.

Methods

In a parallel group, open randomised controlled trial, approximately 580 adults born between 1950 and 1975 will be recruited from the on-going population-based, observational Fenland Study (Cambridgeshire, UK). Eligible participants will have undergone clinical, anthropometric, and psychosocial measurements, been genotyped for 23 single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with T2D, and worn a combined heart rate monitor and accelerometer (Actiheart®) continuously for six days and nights to assess physical activity. Participants are randomised to receive either standard lifestyle advice alone (control group), or in combination with a genetic or a phenotypic risk estimate for T2D (intervention groups). The primary outcome is objectively measured physical activity. Secondary outcomes include self-reported diet, self-reported weight, intention to be physically active and to engage in a healthy diet, anxiety, diabetes-related worry, self-rated health, and other cognitive and emotional outcomes. Follow-up occurs eight weeks post-intervention. Values at follow-up, adjusted for baseline, will be compared between randomised groups.

Discussion

This study will provide much needed evidence on the effects of providing information about the genetic and phenotypic risk of T2D. Importantly, it will be among the first to examine the impact of genetic risk information using a randomised controlled trial design, a population-based sample, and an objectively measured behavioural outcome. Results of this trial, along with recent evidence syntheses of similar studies, should inform policy concerning the availability and use of genetic risk information.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09650496

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Godino et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Petit WA, Adamec CA: The encyclopedia of diabetes. New York: Facts On File; 2011.
• [2]Ahmad LA, Crandall JP: Type 2 diabetes prevention: a review. Clin Diabetes 2010, 28:53-59.
• [3]Qi L, Hu FB, Hu G: Genes, environment, and interactions in prevention of type 2 diabetes: a focus on physical activity and lifestyle changes. Curr Mol Med 2008, 8:519-532.
• [4]Doria A, Patti ME, Kahn CR: The emerging genetic architecture of type 2 diabetes. Cell Metab 2008, 8:186-200.
• [5]Bonnefond A, Froguel P, Vaxillaire M: The emerging genetics of type 2 diabetes. Trends Mol Med 2010, 16:407-416.
• [6]Dupuis J, Langenberg C, Prokopenko I, Saxena R, Soranzo N, Jackson AU, Wheeler E, Glazer NL, Bouatia-Naji N, Gloyn AL, et al.: New genetic loci implicated in fasting glucose homeostasis and their impact on type 2 diabetes risk. Nat Genet 2010, 42:105-116.
• [7]Lyssenko V, Nagorny CLF, Erdos MR, Wierup N, Jonsson A, Spegel P, Bugliani M, Saxena R, Fex M, Pulizzi N, et al.: Common variant in MTNR1B associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes and impaired early insulin secretion. Nat Genet 2009, 41:82-88.
• [8]Saxena R, Voight BF, Lyssenko V, Burtt NP, de Bakker PIW, Chen H, Roix JJ, Kathiresan S, Hirschhorn JN, Daly MJ, et al.: Genome-wide association analysis identifies loci for type 2 diabetes and triglyceride levels. Science 2007, 316:1331-1336.
• [9]Steinthorsdottir V, Thorleifsson G, Reynisdottir I, Benediktsson R, Jonsdottir T, Walters GB, Styrkarsdottir U, Gretarsdottir S, Emilsson V, Ghosh S, et al.: A variant in CDKAL1 influences insulin response and risk of type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet 2007, 39:770-775.
• [10]Voight BF, Scott LJ, Steinthorsdottir V, Morris AP, Dina C, Welch RP, Zeggini E, Huth C, Aulchenko YS, Thorleifsson G, et al.: Twelve type 2 diabetes susceptibility loci identified through large-scale association analysis. Nat Genet 2010, 42:579-589.
• [11]Zeggini E, Scott LJ, Saxena R, Voight BF, Marchini JL, Hu T, de Bakker PIW, Abecasis GR, Almgren P, Andersen G, et al.: Meta-analysis of genome-wide association data and large-scale replication identifies additional susceptibility loci for type 2 diabetes. Nat Genet 2008, 40:638-645.
• [12]Zeggini E, Weedon MN, Lindgren CM, Frayling TM, Elliott KS, Lango H, Timpson NJ, Perry JRB, Rayner NW, Freathy RM, et al.: Replication of genome-wide association signals in UK samples reveals risk loci for type 2 diabetes. Science 2007, 316:1336-1341.
• [13]Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS: A vision for the future of genomics research: A blueprint for the genomic era. Nature 2003, 422:835-847.
• [14]Grant RW, Moore AF, Florez JC: Genetic architecture of type 2 diabetes: Recent progress and clinical implications. Diabetes Care 2009, 32:1107-1114.
• [15]Majithia AR, Florez JC: Clinical translation of genetic predictors for type 2 diabetes. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes and Obesity 2009, 16:100-106.
• [16]Stolerman ES, Florez JC: Genomics of type 2 diabetes mellitus: implications for the clinician. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2009, 5:429-436.
• [17]Buijsse B, Simmons RK, Griffin SJ, Schulze MB: Risk assessment tools for identifying individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Epidemiologic Rev 2011, 33:46-62.
• [18]Noble D, Mathur R, Dent T, Meads C, Greenhalgh T: Risk models and scores for type 2 diabetes: systematic review. Br Med J 2011, 343:d7163.
• [19]Talmud PJ, Hingorani AD, Cooper JA, Marmot MG, Brunner EJ, Kumari M, Kivimäki M, Humphries SE: Utility of genetic and non-genetic risk factors in prediction of type 2 diabetes: Whitehall II prospective cohort study. Br Med J 2010, 340:b4838.
• [20]Edelman E, Eng C: A practical guide to interpretation and clinical application of personal genomic screening. Br Med J 2009, 339:b4253.
• [21]Wang C, Bowen DJ, Kardia SL: Research and practice opportunities at the intersection of health education, health behavior, and genomics. Health Educ Behav 2005, 32:686-701.
• [22]Feero WG, Guttmacher AE, Collins FS: The Genome Gets Personal—Almost. JAMA 2008, 299:1351-1352.
• [23]Marteau TM: Communicating genetic risk information. Br Med Bull 1999, 55:414-428.
• [24]Marteau TM, Weinman J: Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: A theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Social Sci Med 2006, 62:1360-1368.
• [25]Collins RE, Wright AJ, Marteau TM: Impact of communicating personalized genetic risk information on perceived control over the risk: a systematic review. Genet Med 2011, 13:273.
• [26]Bates BR, Templeton A, Achter PJ, Harris TM, Condit CM: What does "a gene for heart disease" mean? A focus group study of public understandings of genetic risk factors. Am J Med Genet A 2003, 119A:156-161.
• [27]Boer H, Seydel E: Protection motivation theory. In Predicting Health Behavior 1st edition. Edited by Connor M, Norman P. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1996:95-118.
• [28]Brewer N, Weinstein N, Cuite C, Herrington J: Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. Ann Behav Med 2004, 27:125-130.
• [29]Rothman AJ, Kiviniemi MT: Treating people with information: an analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999, 1999:44-51.
• [30]Weinstein ND: What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999, 1999:15-20.
• [31]Price H: Risk communication: Why, what and how?A discussion of the evidence regarding risk communication and how best to do it in practice. Diabetes and Primary Care 2010, 12:100.
• [32]Sivell S, Elwyn G, Gaff CL, Clarke AJ, Iredale R, Shaw C, Dundon J, Thornton H, Edwards A: How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: Systematic review. J Genet Couns 2008, 17:30-63.
• [33]Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A: Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. Br Med J 2002, 324:827-830.
• [34]Gigerenzer G, Edwards A: Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. Br Med J 2003, 327:741-744.
• [35]Cameron LD, Sherman KA, Marteau TM, Brown PM: Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. Heal Psychol 2009, 28:307.
• [36]Leventhal H, Brissette I, Leventhal EA: The common-sense model of self-regulation of health and illness. In The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour. Edited by Cameron LD, Leventhal H. New York: Routledge; 2003:42-65.
• [37]Floyd D, Prentice-Dunn S: A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol 2000, 30:407-429.
• [38]Milne S, Sheeran P, Orbell S: Prediction and intervention in health-related behavior: A meta-analytic review of protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol 2000, 30:106-143.
• [39]Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ, Prevost A, Sutton S, Watkinson C, Attwood S, Hollands GJ: Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Annu Rev Public Health 2010.
• [40]McBride CM, Koehly LM, Sanderson SC, Kaphingst KA: The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: Will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annu Rev Public Health 2010, 31:89-103.
• [41]Marteau TM, Lerman C: Genetic risk and behavioural change. Br Med J 2001, 322:1056-1059.
• [42]Beery TA, Williams JK: Risk reduction and health promotion behaviors following genetic testing for adult-onset disorders. Genet Test 2007, 11:111-123.
• [43]Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Wells PS: A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med 2008, 10:19-32.
• [44]Scheuner MT, Sieverding P, Shekelle PG: Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. JAMA 2008, 299:1320-1334.
• [45]McBride CM, Brody LC: Point: genetic risk feedback for common disease time to test the waters. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007, 16:1724-1726.
• [46]Khoury MJ, Gwinn M, Yoon PW, Dowling N, Moore CA, Bradley L: The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genet Med 2007, 9:665.
• [47]De Lucia Rolfe E, Loos RJF, Druet C, Stolk RP, Ekelund U, Griffin SJ, Forouhi NG, Wareham NJ, Ong KK: Association between birth weight and visceral fat in adults. Am J Clin Nutr 2010, 92:347.
• [48]Edwards A, Gray J, Clarke A, Dundon J, Elwyn G, Gaff C, Hood K, Iredale R, Sivell S, Shaw C, Thornton H: Interventions to improve risk communication in clinical genetics: Systematic review. Patient Educ Counseling 2008, 71:4-25.
• [49]Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA: “If I’m better than average, then I’m ok?”: Comparative information influences beliefs about risk and benefits. Patient Educ Counseling 2007, 69:140-144.
• [50]Mason D, Prevost AT, Sutton S: Perceptions of absolute versus relative differences between personal and comparison health risk. Heal Psychol 2008, 27:87.
• [51]Cameron LD: Can our health behaviour models handle imagery-based processes and communications? The Eur Health Psychologist 2009, 11:56-58.
• [52]Navigenics: The science behind the Navigenics service. [http://www.navigenics.com/static/pdf/Navigenics-TheScience.pdf webcite]
• [53]deCODEme: Risk calculations. [http://demo.decodeme.com/health-watch-information/risk-calculation webcite]
• [54]23andMe: (White Paper 23–01) Estimating genotype-specific incidence for one or several loci. [https://23andme.https.internapcdn.net/res/pdf/HIC-SXIYiYqXreldAxO5yA_23-01_Estimating_Genotype_Specific_Incidence.pdf webcite]
• [55]Narayan KMV, Boyle JP, Thompson TJ, Sorensen SW, Williamson DF: Lifetime Risk for Diabetes Mellitus in the United States. JAMA 2003, 290:1884-1890.
• [56]NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative Expert Panel on the Identification Evaluation and Treatment of Obesity in Adults: Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults – The evidence report. Washington DC: National Institutes of Health; 1998.
• [57]Griffin S, Little P, Hales C, Kinmonth A, Wareham N: Diabetes risk score: towards earlier detection of type 2 diabetes in general practice. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2000, 16:164-171.
• [58]Rahman M, Simmons RK, Harding AH, Wareham NJ, Griffin SJ: A simple risk score identifies individuals at high risk of developing Type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Fam Pract 2008, 25:191-196.
• [59]DOH: At least five a week: Evidence on the impact of physical activity and its relationship to health. London: London Department of Health; 2004.
• [60]Cardiovascular Review Group Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy: Nutritional aspects of cardiovascular disease: Report on health and social subjects. London: HMSO; 1994.
• [61]Brage S, Brage N, Franks P, Ekelund U, Wareham N: Reliability and validity of the combined heart rate and movement sensor Actiheart. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005, 59:561-570.
• [62]Brage S, Ekelund U, Brage N, Hennings MA, Froberg K, Franks PW, Wareham NJ: Hierarchy of individual calibration levels for heart rate and accelerometry to measure physical activity. J Appl Physiol 2007, 103:682.
• [63]Brage S, Brage N, Franks P, Ekelund U, Wong M, Andersen L, Froberg K, Wareham N: Branched equation modeling of simultaneous accelerometry and heart rate monitoring improves estimate of directly measured physical activity energy expenditure. J Appl Physiol 2004, 96:343.
• [64]Thompson D, Batterham A, Bock S, Robson C, Stokes K: Assessment of low-to-moderate intensity physical activity thermogenesis in young adults using synchronized heart rate and accelerometry with branched-equation modeling. J Nutr 2006, 136:1037.
• [65]Strath SJ, Brage S, Ekelund U: Integration of physiological and accelerometer data to improve physical activity assessment. Med Sci Sports Exercise 2005, 37:S563-S571.
• [66]Godino JG, Lepore SJ, Rassnick S: Relation of misperception of healthy weight to obesity in urban black men. Obesity 2009, 18:1318-1322.
• [67]Atlantis E, Barnes EH, Ball K: Weight status and perception barriers to healthy physical activity and diet behavior. Int J Obes 2008, 32:343-352.
• [68]Maximova K, McGrath JJ, Barnett T, O'Loughlin J, Paradis G, Lambert M: Do you see what I see? Weight status misperception and exposure to obesity among children and adolescents. Int J Obes 2008, 32:1008-1015.
• [69]Lechner L, Brug J, De Vries H: Misconceptions of fruit and vegetable consumption: Differences between objective and subjective estimation of intake. J Nutr Educ 1997, 29:313-320.
• [70]Lechner L, Brug J, De Vries H, van Assema P, Mudde A: Stages of change for fruit, vegetable and fat intake: consequences of misconception. Heal Educ Res 1998, 13:1-a-11.
• [71]Lechner L, Bolman C, Van Dijke M: Factors related to misperception of physical activity in The Netherlands and implications for health promotion programmes. Heal Promot Int 2006, 21:104-112.
• [72]van Sluijs E, Griffin S, van Poppel M: A cross-sectional study of awareness of physical activity: associations with personal, behavioral and psychosocial factors. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2007, 4:53. BioMed Central Full Text
• [73]Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, Weinman J: The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res 2006, 60:631-637.
• [74]Figueiras MJ, Alves NC: Lay perceptions of serious illnesses: An adapted version of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R) for healthy people. Psychol Heal 2007, 22:143-158.
• [75]Cameron LD: Illness risk representations and motivations to engage in protective behavior: The case of skin cancer risk. Psychol Heal 2008, 23:91-112.
• [76]Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991, 50:179-211.
• [77]Ajzen I: Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. aa aa, aa:aa. http://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/html/files/spatbeh/tpb.measurement.pdf webcite
• [78]Blue CL: Does the theory of planned behavior identify diabetes-related cognitions for intention to be physically active and eat a healthy diet? Public Health Nursing 2007, 24:141-150.
• [79]Diefenbach MA, Weinstein ND, O'Reilly J: Scales for assessing perceptions of health hazard susceptibility. Heal Educ Res 1993, 8:181-192.
• [80]Lipkus IM, Kuchibhatla M, McBride CM, Bosworth HB, Pollak KI, Siegler IC, Rimer BK: Relationships among breast cancer perceived absolute risk, comparative risk, and worries. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000, 9:973-975.
• [81]Fayers PM, Sprangers MAG: Understanding self-rated health. Lancet 2002, 359:187-188.
• [82]Watson M, Lloyd S, Davidson J, Meyer L, Eeles R, Ebbs S, Murday V: The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1999, 79:868.
• [83]Rees G, Fry A, Cull A, Sutton S: Illness perceptions and distress in women at increased risk of breast cancer. Psychol Heal 2004, 19:749-765.
• [84]Marteau TM, Bekker H: The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 1992, 31:301-306.
• [85]Park P, Simmons RK, Prevost AT, Griffin SJ: Screening for type 2 diabetes is feasible, acceptable, but associated with increased short-term anxiety: a randomised controlled trial in British general practice. BMC Publ Health 2008, 8:350. BioMed Central Full Text
• [86]Gorber SC, Tremblay M, Moher D, Gorber B: A comparison of direct vs. self‐report measures for assessing height, weight and body mass index: a systematic review. Obes Rev 2007, 8:307-326.
• [87]McKeown NM, Day NE, Welch AA, Runswick SA, Luben RN, Mulligan AA, McTaggart A, Bingham SA: Use of biological markers to validate self-reported dietary intake in a random sample of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer United Kingdom Norfolk cohort. Am J Clin Nutr 2001, 74:188-196.
• [88]Bingham SA, Gill C, Welch A, Day K, Cassidy A, Khaw KT, Sneyd MJ, Key TJA, Roe L, Day NE: Comparison of dietary assessment methods in nutritional epidemiology: weighed records v. 24 h recalls, food-frequency questionnaires and estimated-diet records. Br J Nutr 1994, 72:619-643.
• [89]Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, Wood AM, Carpenter JR: Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. Br Med J 2009, 338:b2393.
• [90]White IR, Thompson SG: Adjusting for partially missing baseline measurements in randomized trials. Stat Med 2005, 24:993-1007.
• [91]Watkinson C, van Sluijs E, Sutton S, Marteau T, Griffin S: Randomised controlled trial of the effects of physical activity feedback on awareness and behaviour in UK adults: the FAB study protocol [ISRCTN92551397]. BMC Publ Health 2010, 10:144. BioMed Central Full Text
• [92]ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: Guideline for good clinical practice E6 (R1). [http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6_R1/Step4/E6_R1__Guideline.pdf webcite]
• [93]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Br Med J 2008, 337:a1655.
• [94]Yates T, Davies M, Khunti K: Preventing type 2 diabetes: can we make the evidence work? Postgrad Med J 2009, 85:475-480.