Background: Studying the impact of genetic testing interventions on lifestyle behaviour change has been a priority area of research in recent years. Substantial heterogeneity exists in the results and conclusions of this literature, which has yet to be explained using validated behaviour change theory and an assessment of the quality of genetic interventions. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) helps to explain key contributors to behaviour change. It has been hypothesized that personalization could be added to this theory to help predict changes in health behaviours. Purpose: This systematic review provides a detailed, comprehensive identification, assessment, and summary of primary research articles pertaining to lifestyle behaviour change (nutrition, physical activity, sleep, and smoking) resulting from genetic testing interventions. The present review further aims to provide in-depth analyses of studies conducted to date within the context of the TPB and the quality of genetic interventions provided to participants while aiming to determine whether or not genetic testing facilitates changes in lifestyle habits. This review is timely in light of a recently published “call-to-action” paper, highlighting the need to incorporate the TPB into personalized healthcare behaviour change research. Methods: Three bibliographic databases, one key website, and article reference lists were searched for relevant primary research articles. The PRISMA Flow Diagram and PRISMA Checklist were used to guide the search strategy and manuscript preparation. Out of 32,783 titles retrieved, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three quality assessments were conducted and included: (1) risk of bias, (2) quality of genetic interventions, and (3) consideration of theoretical underpinnings – primarily the TPB. Results: Risk of bias in studies was overall rated to be “fair.” Consideration of the TPB was “poor,” with no study making reference to this validated theory. While some studies (n = 11; 42%) made reference to other behaviour change theories, these theories were generally mentioned briefly, and were not thoroughly incorporated into the study design or analyses. The genetic interventions provided to participants were overall of “poor” quality. However, a separate analysis of studies using controlled intervention research methods demonstrated the use of higher-quality genetic interventions (overall rated to be “fair”). The provision of actionable recommendations informed by genetic testing was more likely to facilitate behaviour change than the provision of genetic information without actionable lifestyle recommendations. Several studies of good quality demonstrated changes in lifestyle habits arising from the provision of genetic interventions. The most promising lifestyle changes were changes in nutrition. Conclusions: It is possible to facilitate behaviour change using genetic testing as the catalyst. Future research should ensure that high-quality genetic interventions are provided to participants, and should consider validated theories such as the TPB in their study design and analyses. Further recommendations for future research are provided.

1.
National Institutes of Health: All about the Human Genome Project. 2015. https://www.genome.gov/10001772/all-about-the-human-genome-project-hgp/.
2.
Gibney MJ, Walsh MC: The future direction of personalised nutrition: my diet, my phenotype, my genes. Proc Nutr Soc 2013; 72: 219–225.
3.
Hollands GJ, French DP, Griffin SJ, Prevost AT, Sutton S, King S, Marteau TM: The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ 2016; 352:i1102.
4.
O’Donovan CB, Walsh MC, Gibney MJ, Brennan L, Gibney ER: Knowing your genes: does this impact behaviour change? Proc Nutr Soc 2017; 76: 182–191.
5.
French DP, Cameron E, Benton JS, Deaton C, Harvie M: Can communicating personalised disease risk promote healthy behaviour change? A systematic review of systematic reviews. Ann Behav Med 2017; 51: 718–729.
6.
Li SX, Ye Z, Whelan K, Truby H: The effect of communicating the genetic risk of cardiometabolic disorders on motivation and actual engagement in preventative lifestyle modification and clinical outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Nutr 2016; 116: 924–934.
7.
Caulfield T, McGuire AL: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu Rev Med 2012; 63: 23–33.
8.
Egglestone C, Morris A, O’Brien A: Effect of direct-to-consumer genetic tests on health behaviour and anxiety: a survey of consumers and potential consumers. J Genet Couns 2013; 22: 565–575.
9.
Hietaranta-Luoma HL, Tahvonen R, Iso- Touru T, Puolijoki H, Hopia A: An intervention study of individual, apoE genotype-based dietary and physical-activity advice: impact on health behavior. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2014; 7: 161–174.
10.
Marsaux CFM, Celis-Morales C, Livingstone KM, Livingstone KM, Fallaize R, Kolossa S, Hallmann J, et al: Changes in physical activity following a genetic-based internet-delivered personalized intervention: randomized controlled trial (Food4Me). J Med Internet Res 2016; 18:e30.
11.
Nielsen DE, El-Sohemy A: Disclosure of genetic information and change in dietary intake: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 2014; 9:e112665.
12.
Roth GA, Johnson C, Abajobir A, Abd-Allah F, Abera SF, Abyu G, et al: Global, regional, and national burden of cardiovascular diseases for 10 causes, 1990 to 2015. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70: 1–25.
13.
CDC: Chronic disease overview. 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/.
14.
Knowler W, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler S, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, et al: Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 393–403.
15.
Ajzen I: The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychol Health 2011; 26: 1113–1127.
16.
Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991; 50: 179–211.
17.
Ajzen I: Theory of planned behavior. 2006. http://people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.html. (accessed April 11, 2017).
18.
Horne J, Madill J, Gilliland J: Incorporating the “Theory of Planned Behaviour” into personalized healthcare behaviour change research: a call to action. Pers Med 2017; 14: 521–529.
19.
West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, et al: Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 2002; 47: 1–11.
20.
Dean E, Söderlund A: What is the role of lifestyle behaviour change associated with non-communicable disease risk in managing musculoskeletal health conditions with special reference to chronic pain? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015; 16: 87.
21.
Walker KZ, O’Dea K, Gomez M, Girgis S, Colagiuri R: Diet and exercise in the prevention of diabetes. J Hum Nutr Diet 2010; 23: 344–352.
22.
Zhu B, Hershberger PE, Kapella MC, Fritschi C: The relationship between sleep disturbance and glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes: an integrative review. J Clin Nurs 2017; 26: 4053–4064.
23.
Wu Y, Zhai L, Zhang D: Sleep duration and obesity among adults: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Sleep Med 2014; 15: 1456–1462.
24.
Audrain J, Boyd NNR, Roth J, Main D, Caporaso NE, Lerman C: Genetic susceptibility testing in smoking-cessation treatment: one-year outcomes of a randomized trial. Addict Behav 1997; 22: 741–751.
25.
Petticrew M, Roberts H: Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Wiley-Blackwell, 2006.
26.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097.
27.
Food4Me: Food4Me: scientific publications. http://food4me.org/scientific-publications (accessed April 11, 2017).
28.
Higgins J, Green S (eds): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Coch-rane Collaboration, 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org.
29.
National Institutes of Health: Study quality assessment tools. 2014. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools.
30.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: CASP Qualitative Research Checklist, 2017. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/.
31.
Fenech M: Genome health nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics – diagnosis and nutritional treatment of genome damage on an individual basis. Food Chem Toxicol 2008; 46: 1365–1370.
32.
Katsanis S, Katsanis N: Molecular genetic testing and the future of clinical genomics. Nat Rev Genet 2015; 14: 415–426.
33.
Witte K, Meyer G, Martell D: Effective Health Risk Messages: A Step-By-Step Guide. Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2001.
34.
Hall S, Weinman J, Marteau TM: The motivating impact of informing women smokers of a link between smoking and cervical cancer: the role of coherence. Health Psychol 2004; 23: 419–424.
35.
Legenthal H, Benyamini Y, Brownlee S, et al: Illness representations: theoretical foundations; in Petrie K, Weinman J (eds): Perceptions of Health and Illness: Current Research and Applications. Amsterdam, Harwood, 1997, pp 19–45.
36.
Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ: Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 524–534.
37.
Bloss CS, Wineinger NE, Darst BF, Schork NJ, Topol EJ: Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. J Med Genet 2013; 50: 393–400.
38.
Ferguson LR, Barnett MPG: Research in nutrigenomics and potential applications to practice. Nutr Diet 2012; 69: 198–202.
39.
Elo S, Kyngäs H: The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008; 62: 107–115.
40.
Siscovick DS, Barringer TA, Fretts AM, Wu JH, Lichtenstein AH, Costello RB, et al: Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (fish oil) supplementation and the prevention of clinical cardiovascular disease: a science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017; 135:e867–e884.
41.
Cornelis MC, El-Sohemy A, Kabagambe EK: Coffee, CYP1A2 genotype, and risk of myocardial infarction. JAMA 2006; 295: 1135–1141.
42.
Hietaranta-Luoma H-L, Tahvonen R, Iso- Touru T, Puolijoki H, Hopia A: An intervention study of individual, apoE genotype-based dietary and physical-activity advice: impact on health behavior. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics 2014; 7: 161–174.
43.
Roke K, Walton K, Klingel S, Harnett A, Su-bedi S, Haines J, Mutch DM: Evaluating changes in omega-3 fatty acid intake after receiving personal FADS1 genetic information: a randomized nutrigenetic intervention. Nutrients 2017; 9:E240.
44.
Meisel SF, Beeken RJ, van Jaarsveld CHM, Wardle J: Genetic susceptibility testing and readiness to control weight: results from a randomized controlled trial. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2015; 23: 305–312.
45.
Boeldt DL, Schork NJ, Topol EJ, Bloss CS: Influence of individual differences in disease perception on consumer response to direct-to-consumer genomic testing. Clin Genet 2015; 87: 225–232.
46.
Voils CI, Coffman CJ, Grubber JM, Edelman D, Sadeghpour A, Maciejewski ML, et al: Does type 2 diabetes genetic testing and counseling reduce modifiable risk factors? A randomized controlled trial of veterans. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30: 1591–1598.
47.
Marsaux CFM, Celis-Morales C, Fallaize R, Macready AL, Kolossa S, Woolhead C, et al: Effects of a web-based personalized intervention on physical activity in European adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17:e231.
48.
Bloss CS, Wineinger NE, Darst BF, Schork NJ, Topol EJ: Impact of direct-to-consumer genomic testing at long term follow-up. J Med Genet 2013; 50: 393–400.
49.
Kaufman DJ, Bollinger JM, Dvoskin RL, Scott JA: Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. J Genet Couns 2012; 21: 413–422.
50.
Hollands GJ, Whitwell SCL, Parker RA, Prescott NJ, Forbes A, Sanderson J, et al: Effect of communicating DNA based risk assessments for Crohn’s disease on smoking cessation: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2012; 345:e4708.
51.
Vernarelli JA, Roberts JS, Hiraki S, Chen CA, Cupples LA, Green RC: Effect of Alzheimer disease genetic risk disclosure on dietary supplement use. Am J Clin Nutr 2010; 91: 1402–1407.
52.
Hishida A, Terazawa T, Mamiya T, Ito H, Matsuo K, Tajima K, et al: Efficacy of genotype notification to Japanese smokers on smoking cessation – an intervention study at workplace. Cancer Epidemiol 2010; 34: 96–100.
53.
Quach J, Porter K, Leventhal H, Kelly KM: Health behaviors among Ashkenazi Jewish individuals receiving counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Fam Cancer 2009; 8: 241–250.
54.
O’Neill SC, Kaufman E, DeMarco T, Peshkin BN, McKenna K, Shelby R, et al: Changes in diet and physical activity following BRCA1/2 testing. J Psychosoc Oncol 2008; 26: 63–80.
55.
Chao S, Roberts JS, Marteau TM, Silliman R, Cupples LA, Green RC: Health behavior changes after genetic risk assessment for Alz-heimer disease: the REVEAL Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2008; 22: 94–97.
56.
Sanderson SC, Humphries SE, Hubbart C, Hughes E, Jarvis MJ, Wardle J: Psychological and behavioural impact of genetic testing smokers for lung cancer risk: a phase II exploratory trial. J Health Psychol 2008; 13: 481–494.
57.
Rees G, Gaff C, Young MA, Martin PR: Health beliefs and behaviors of women who have received genetic counseling for breast cancer. J Genet Couns 2007; 16: 457–468.
58.
Rief W, Conradt M, Dierk JM, Rauh E, Schlumberger P, Hinney A, et al: Is information on genetic determinants of obesity helpful or harmful for obese people? – A randomized clinical trial. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22: 1553–1559.
59.
Carpenter M, Strange C, Jones Y, Dickson MR, Carter C, Moseley MA, et al: Does genetic testing result in behavioral health change? Changes in smoking behavior following testing for alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Ann Behav Med 2007; 33: 22–28.
60.
Ito H, Matsuo K, Wakai K, Saito T, Kumimoto H, Okuma K, et al: An intervention study of smoking cessation with feedback on genetic cancer susceptibility in Japan. Prev Med 2006; 42: 102–108.
61.
Marteau T, Senior V, Humphries SE, Bobrow M, Cranston T, Crook MA, et al: Psychological impact of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia within a previously aware population: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med Genet A 2004; 128A: 285–293.
62.
McBride CM, Bepler G, Lipkus IM, Lyna P, Samsa G, Albright J, et al: Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002; 11: 521–528.
63.
Evans D: Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. J Clin Nurs 2003; 12: 77–84.
64.
Public Health Agency of Canada: Social determinants of health. 2016. http://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/public-health-topics/social-determinants-of-health/ (accessed April 11, 2017).
65.
Chao S, Roberts JS, Marteau TM, Silliman R, Cupples LA, Green RC: Health behavior changes after genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: the REVEAL Study. Alz-heimer Dis Assoc Disord 2008; 22: 94–97.
66.
de Viron S, Van der Heyden J, Ambrosino E, Arbyn M, Brand A, Van Oyen H: Impact of genetic notification on smoking cessation: systematic review and pooled-analysis. PLoS One 2012; 7:e40230.
67.
Krause AJ, Simon EB, Mander BA, Greer SM, Saletin JM, Goldstein-Piekarski AN, et al: The sleep-deprived human brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 2017; 18: 404–418.
68.
Notani AS: Moderators of perceived behavioral control’s predictiveness in the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analysis. J Consum Psychol 1998; 7: 247–271.
69.
Rivis A, Sheeran P: Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Curr Psychol 2003; 22: 218–223.
70.
Wittmann W: A meta-analysis of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior: the principle of compatibility and multidimensionality of beliefs as moderators; in Schulze R, Holling H, Bohning D (eds): Meta-Analysis: New Developments and Applications in Medical and Social Sciences. Seattle, Hogrefe and Huber, 2003, pp 219–250.
71.
Armitage CJ, Conner M: Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol 2001; 40(pt 4): 471–499.
72.
Cheung SF, Chan D: The role of perceived behavioral control in predicting human behavior: a meta-analytic review of studies on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Unpublished manuscript, 2000.
73.
McEachan R, Taylor N, Harrison R, Lawton R, Gardner P, Conner M: Meta-analysis of the reasoned action approach (RAA) to understanding health behaviors. Ann Behav Med 2016; 50: 592–612.
74.
Prochaska JO, Velicer WF: The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot 1997; 12: 38–48.
75.
National Institutes of Health: Genetics home reference. What are the risks and limitations of genetic testing? 2018. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/testing/riskslimitations.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.