ABSTRACT
The availability of genetic tests for multifactorial conditions such as obesity raises concerns that higher-risk results could lead to fatalistic reactions or lower-risk results to complacency. No study has investigated the effects of genetic test feedback for the risk of obesity in non-clinical samples. The present study explored psychological and behavioral reactions to genetic test feedback for a weight related gene (FTO) in a volunteer sample (n = 18) using semi-structured interviews. Respondents perceived the gene test result as scientifically objective; removing some of the emotion attached to the issue of weight control. Those who were struggling with weight control reported relief of self-blame. There was no evidence for either complacency or fatalism; all respondents emphasized the importance of lifestyle choices in long-term weight management, although they recognized the role of both genes and environment. Regardless of the test result, respondents evaluated the testing positively and found it motivating and informative. Genetic test feedback for risk of weight gain may offer psychological benefits beyond its objectively limited clinical utility. As the role of genetic counselors is likely to expand, awareness of reasons for genetic testing for common, complex conditions and reactions to the test result is important.
Subject(s)
Genetic Testing , Weight Gain/genetics , Female , Humans , MaleABSTRACT
Current evidence indicates that genetic testing for obesity risk has limited affective or behavioral impact, but few studies have explored the effects among individuals who self-identify as having weight problems. Here, we report findings from in-depth telephone interviews with seven overweight or obese volunteers who were genotyped for one weight-related gene (FTO), which may offer interesting insights into motivations to seek out genetic testing and immediate reactions to it. All participants had a BMI > 25. The gene test identified one participant as homozygous for the 'higher-risk' variant (AA), three heterozygous (AT), and three homozygous for the 'lower-risk' variant (TT) of FTO. All participants said they took part to find an explanation for their personal struggle with weight control. Those with one or two higher-risk variants experienced relief and saw the result as confirming their private assumption that they were susceptible to weight gain for reasons perceived as 'external' to them. However, at the same time, they described themselves as more motivated to overcome their genetic predisposition. Those with lower-risk variants reported brief disappointment, but then focused on alternative explanations, reinforcing the multifactorial nature of obesity. Despite objectively low 'information value,' all individuals derived some 'personal' benefit from FTO genetic test feedback. However, improving education about the multifactorial nature of complex conditions is important to decrease polarized thinking and associated genetic determinism and stigma to derive the greatest benefits of novel genetic technologies for individuals and their health.
ABSTRACT
STUDY PURPOSE: A population-based risk stratification programme for ovarian cancer (OC) may improve OC survival by identifying women at increased risk and implementing an appropriate risk management strategy. The present study explored attitudes towards an OC risk stratification programme incorporating predictive genetic testing and risk-stratified screening as part of a larger study investigating OC screening. METHODS: Focus groups consisting of 56 members of the general public (mean age 45 years; 34% non-white) were conducted using a hypothetical scenario. The group sessions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: There was strong support for the proposed programme. Genetic testing and risk-stratified screening was thought to raise awareness, offer reassurance and offer opportunities for early intervention. Anxiety was only mentioned in relation to receiving a diagnosis of OC and not with screening per se. Perhaps because lay models of cancer already embrace both environmental and genetic factors, a low-risk result was not anticipated to result in a false sense of immunity. Unexpectedly, participants also wanted to receive cancer prevention advice in conjunction with genetic testing; screening alone was not regarded as sufficient. CONCLUSION: The encouraging results from this small study warrant further large-scale research into risk-stratified OC screening.
