Using ApoE Genotyping to Promote Healthy Lifestyles in Finland – Psychological Impacts: Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Common health recommendations often incite very little public response, as people instead require individualized information. The purpose of this study was to assess the psychological effects of personal genetic information, provided by different apoE genotypes, as a tool to promote lifestyle changes. This study was a one-year intervention study using healthy adults, aged 20-67 years (n = 107). Their experiences of state anxiety, threat and stage of change were measured three times over a 12 months period. These psychological experiences were assessed, during the genetic information gathering, for three groups: a high-risk group (Ɛ4+, n = 16); a low-risk group (Ɛ4-, n = 35); and a control group (n = 56). The psychological effects of personal genetic risk information were shown to be short-term, although the levels of state anxiety and threat experiences in the high-risk group both remained at a slightly higher level than in the baseline. Threat experiences differed almost significantly (alpha = 0.017) between the Ɛ4+ and Ɛ4- groups (p = 0.034). Information on the apoE genotype impacted the experience of cardiovascular threat; this effect was most intense immediately after genetic feedback was received. However, fears of threat and anxiety may not be an obstacle for using gene information to motivate healthy, stable adults towards making lifestyle changes. Further studies should thus focus on how to utilize genetic screening in prevention of lifestyle-related diseases.

Using Individual, ApoE Genotype-Based Dietary and Physical Activity Advice to Promote Healthy Lifestyles in Finland—Impacts on Cardiovascular Risk Markers

“…group sizes, only one biomarker, randomization and lack of background variables) have been reported in our previous studies [26] [27].…”

“…The baseline and follow-up assessments included detailed measurements of psychological (threat and anxiety experience, stage of change), [26] and behavioral (dietary fat quality, consumption of vegetables-high fat/sugar foods and-alcohol, physical activity and health and taste attitudes) [27] and clinical factors ( Table 1). During the intervention six different communication sessions (lectures on healthy lifestyle and nutrigenomics, health messages by mail, and personal discussion with the doctor) were arranged.…”

“…Effects on cardiovascular risk markers were assessed for the three groups (n = 106): the intervention high-risk group (Ɛ4+, n = 16); the intervention low-risk group (Ɛ4-, n = 35); and the control group (n = 56). A detailed procedure of this intervention has been described in our previous papers [26] [27]. Table 1 describes the qualities of clinical measurements.…”

“…In our previous papers, we have reported psychological [26] and behavioral [27] effects. In the current paper, we focus on the effect of the specific risk factors of CVD.…”

Nutrigenomics, the Microbiome, and Gene-Environment Interactions: New Directions in Cardiovascular Disease Research, Prevention, and Treatment

“…296 An intervention to improve diet quality based on personalized advice for genotype at APOE found that high-risk individuals who received personalized dietary advice were more likely to make short-term dietary improvements compared with low-risk or control subjects. 297 Although consumers are more engaged when receiving personalized dietary advice, the higher initial motivation may not lead to sustained long-term implementation of dietary changes. However, even if the hurdles of implementation and longterm patient motivation are overcome, the main obstacle to personalized nutrition lies in establishing sufficient scientific evidence to make informed and efficacious recommendations.…”