Depiction of gene-environment relationships in online medical recommendations

Cheng, Youyou; Condit, Celeste M.; Flannery, David B.

doi:10.1097/gim.0b013e31817701a8

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yang et al (43) have argued that approaching the relationship between genetics and environment with the additive approach reflected in most of the research described above is insufficient, because the interaction between genes and environments means that their respective contributions are not mathematically additive. Instead of simply focusing on comparative quantity of input, some recent work has tried to begin to articulate the qualitative characteristics of public understandings of causation held by the public (23, 26, 44) and in public media (45, 46) by describing the models used by the public. In their work on behavioral genetics, Condit et al (44) described five models used by lay people, including a model that placed the environment as a trigger or catalyzer of genetic proclivities, a Lamarckian model (which identifies behaviorally induced phenotypes in parents as being heritable by offspring), and three models with different relative balances of genes and behaviors that were dependent not only on the size of the role of gene and behavior but also on the presumed level of variation among genes in human populations.…”

Section: Models Of Gene–behavior Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public understandings of genetics and health

Condit

2009

Clinical Genetics

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review of adult public understandings of genetics related to health indicates that the public's understandings overlap with those of professionals in some areas, but not others. Specifically, the majority of the world's people who have been studied understand genetics through the lens of heredity, not in terms of the structural and functional nature of genes. Public understandings of hereditary processes are influenced by models of social relationships and by experiential familiarity with particular conditions as much as by academic research results. Most people hold a fairly strong belief that many health conditions are substantially influenced by both genes and other factors. However, they do not have a stable understanding of the nature of gene-environment interactions. People in cultures where science is not a prominent cultural mode are even less likely to hold the belief structures of professional geneticists. In some areas--notably with regard to racialization of genetic medicine and characterizations of genetic variations as 'mutations'--at least some members of the public strongly reject some geneticists' constructions. Public understanding of details pertinent to genetic testing generally appears to be weak.

show abstract

Section: Models Of Gene–behavior Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public understandings of genetics and health

Condit

2009

Clinical Genetics

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Preliminary work exists regarding the issues of public understanding of gene-environment interaction [24,25,26,27], public education about gene-environment interaction [28,29] and the impacts of public messages about gene-environment interaction [30]. This research has tentatively addressed both the qualitative and quantitative dimensions of public understandings of the gene-environment relationship.…”

Section: Qualitative Research On Public Understanding Of Gene-environmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Understanding of Risks from Gene-Environment Interaction in Common Diseases: Implications for Public Communications

Condit

Shen²

2010

Public Health Genomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Public understanding of the relationship between health behaviors and genes is likely to affect the motivational impact of learning information about one’s own genes. Extant research has featured difficulty measuring public understandings of this relationship. This essay explores public understanding of the relationship between genes and behavior, especially with regard to the mathematical relationships to risk concept. It contributes a psychometrically valid scale for measuring beliefs about gene- behavior relationships. Methods: Three population representative surveys (n = 633, 658, 1,218) were conducted using the Knowledge Networks panel platform. Results: Interpretations of risk vary depending on whether genes and behavior are conceived of as health-damaging (loss frame) or health-protecting (gain frame). In the loss frame, the majority of the population adopts an additive model of the relationship with approximately one-third adopting an amplificative model. In the gain frame, beliefs are divided roughly equally among additive, amplificative and sub-additive models. Scores on the nonmathematically based scale indicate higher belief in the existence of interaction than scores on the more concrete question format. Conclusions: The existence of different interpretations of gene-behavior relationships based on gain/loss frame and abstract/concrete modes indicates the need to select frame and mode carefully in both teaching and research. Research is needed to identify optimal configurations for teaching and presenting this relatively complex material.

show abstract

“…In addition to increasing awareness about an issue, the media can shape the public's perceptions of risk (Brennan, Durkin, Cotter, Harper, & Wakefield, 2011;Morton & Duck, 2001) and influence engagement in health behaviours (Valente & Saba, 1998;Wakefield et al, 2013). However, the media have been criticized for failing to convey scientific results accurately (Brechman, Lee, & Cappella, 2011;Condit, 2007), for overemphasizing the genetic aspect of a disease that has both genetic and behavioural risk factors (Cheng, Condit, & Flannery, 2008), and for overstating the importance of genomics research in general (Caulfield & Condit, 2012). Although research suggests that news headlines such as 'Can't quit smoking?…”

Section: Statement Of Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concerns about unintended negative consequences of informing the public about multifactorial risks may be premature for young adult smokers

Waters

Kincaid

Kaufman

et al. 2013

British J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many health risks are associated with both genetic and behavioral factors. Concerns have been raised that learning about such multifactorial risks might have detrimental effects on health-related beliefs, cognitions and affect. However, experimental evidence is sparse. Objective To explore the effects of reading an online news article about the discovery of a genetic basis for nicotine addiction. Methods Smokers (N=333) were recruited from the psychology subject pools of two major universities. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of three news articles: one describing a genetic basis for nicotine addiction and lung cancer obtained from a national news source, one altered to indicate no genetic basis for nicotine addiction and lung cancer, or one unrelated attention control. Participants then completed an online questionnaire, which assessed smoking-related cognitions and affect, and beliefs about nicotine addiction, quitting smoking, and whether the harms of tobacco use are delayed. Results There was no statistically significant influence of experimental condition on smoking-related cognitions/affect (ps>.05, η2<.002), beliefs about addiction and quitting (Wilks' λ=0.98, p=.66, η2=.01), or delayed harm (ps>.05, η2<.002). Conclusion Reading an online news article about the presence or absence of a genetic basis for nicotine addiction was not found to change smoking-related cognitions/affect or beliefs among young adult smokers. Concerns about negative effects of multifactorial risk information on health beliefs may be premature. Nevertheless, to effectively translate basic genomics research into effective public health practice, further research should investigate these issues in different populations, via different communication modalities, and for different health outcomes.

show abstract

Depiction of gene-environment relationships in online medical recommendations

Cited by 6 publications

References 41 publications

Public understandings of genetics and health

Public understandings of genetics and health

Public Understanding of Risks from Gene-Environment Interaction in Common Diseases: Implications for Public Communications

Concerns about unintended negative consequences of informing the public about multifactorial risks may be premature for young adult smokers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About