CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyBRCA gene mutations in cancerEthics in Clinical Research

Behavioral impact of return of genetic test results for complex disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Open access
Frieser, Maia J., Wilson, Sylia, Vrieze, Scott·2018·Health Psychology
DOI 10.1037/hea0000683PMC PMC6263735
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Advances in genomewide association studies have made possible the return of genetic risk results for complex diseases. Two concerns about these results are (a) negative psychological consequences and (b) viewing probabilistic results as deterministic, leading to misinterpretation and inappropriate decisions. The present study evaluates these concerns through a meta-analytic review of existing literature. METHOD: Seventeen genetic testing studies of complex disease, including 1,171 participants and reporting 195 effects, 104 of which were unadjusted for covariates, were meta-analyzed under a random effects model. Diseases included Alzheimer's, cardiovascular and coronary heart disease, lung cancer, melanoma, thrombophilia, and type II diabetes. Six domains of behavioral-psychological reactions were examined. RESULTS: Carriers showed significantly increased self-reported behavior change compared to noncarriers when assessed 6 months or later after results return (Hedges's g = .36, p = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Return of genetic testing results for complex disease does not strongly impact self-reported negative behavior or psychological function of at-risk individuals. Return of results does appear to moderately increase self-reported healthy behavior in carriers, although research on objectively observed behavior change is needed. This is a growing area of research, with preliminary results suggesting potential positive implications of genetic testing for complex disease on behavior change. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/hea0000683

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Return of genetic risk of complex disease to at-risk patients does not induce significant self-reported negative behavior or psychological function, and some potentially positive behavioral changes have been detected.

    “Promisingly, return of genetic risk of complex disease to at-risk patients does not induce significant self-reported negative behavior or psychological function, and some potentially positive behavioral changes have been detected10.”

    From Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities (2019) · cites this paper as [10]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Aspinwall LG, Leaf SL, Dola ER, Kohlmann W, & Leachman SA (2008). CDKN2A/p16 genetic test reporting improves early detection intentions and practices in high-risk melanoma families. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 17(6), 1510– 1519. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-08-0010 18559569 · DOI
  2. Aspinwall LG, Leaf SL, Kohlmann W, Dola ER, & Leachman SA (2009). Patterns of photoprotection following CDKN2A/p16 genetic test reporting and counseling. J Am Acad Dermatol, 60(5), 745– 757. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2008.12.034 19278751 · DOI
  3. Aspinwall LG, Taber JM, Kohlmann W, Leaf SL, & Leachman SA (2014). Unaffected family members report improvements in daily routine sun protection 2 years following melanoma genetic testing. Genetics in Medicine, 16(11), 846– 853. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.37 24763292 PMC4209010 · DOI
  4. Aspinwall LG, Taber JM, Leaf SL, Kohlmann W, & Leachman SA (2013). Melanoma Genetic Counseling and Test Reporting Improve Screening Adherence Among Unaffected Carriers 2 Years Later. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 22(10), 1687– 1697. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-13-0422 PMC3837428 23950214 · DOI
  5. Burke W, Antommaria AHM, Bennett R, Botkin J, Clayton EW, Henderson GE,... Zimmern R (2013). Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 15(11), 854– 859. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.113 23907645 PMC3832423 · DOI
  6. Chao S, Roberts JS, Marteau TM, Silliman R, Cupples LA, & Green RC (2008). Health Behavior Changes After Genetic Risk Assessment for Alzheimer Disease: The REVEAL Study. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders, 22(1), 94– 97. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e31815a9dcc 18317253 PMC2483341 · DOI
  7. Christensen KD, Roberts JS, Whitehouse PJ, Royal CD, Obisesan TO, Cupples LA,... Green RC (2016). Disclosing Pleiotropic Effects During Genetic Risk Assessment for Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med, 164(3), 155– 163. doi: 10.7326/m15-0187 26810768 PMC4979546 · DOI
  8. Christensen KD, Vassy JL, Jamal L, Lehmann LS, Slashinski MJ, Perry DL,... McGuire AL (2016). Are physicians prepared for whole genome sequencing? a qualitative analysis. Clin Genet, 89(2), 228– 234. doi: 10.1111/cge.12626 26080898 PMC4683111 · DOI
  9. Corder EH, Saunders AM, Strittmatter WJ, Schmechel DE, Gaskell PC, Small GW,... Pericak-Vance MA (1993). Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in late onset families. Science, 261(5123), 921– 923. 8346443
  10. Dar-Nimrod I, & Heine SJ (2011). Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 800– 818. doi: 10.1037/a0021860 21142350 PMC3394457 · DOI
  11. Genin E, Hannequin D, Wallon D, Sleegers K, Hiltunen M, Combarros O,... Campion D (2011). APOE and Alzheimer disease: a major gene with semi-dominant inheritance. Mol Psychiatry, 16(9), 903– 907. doi: 10.1038/mp.2011.52 21556001 PMC3162068 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Gould WA, & Heine SJ (2012). Implicit Essentialism: Genetic Concepts Are Implicitly Associated with Fate Concepts. PLoS ONE, 7(6). PMC3369887 22685554
  13. Grant RW, O’Brien KE, Waxler JL, Vassy JL, Delahanty LM, Bissett LG,... Meigs JB (2013). Personalized Genetic Risk Counseling to Motivate Diabetes Prevention: A randomized trial. Diabetes Care, 36(1), 13– 19. doi: 10.2337/dc12-0884 22933432 PMC3526219 · DOI
  14. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, Kalia SS, Korf BR, Martin CL,... Biesecker LG (2013). ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing. Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 15(7), 565– 574. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.73 23788249 PMC3727274 · DOI
  15. Green RC, Roberts JS, Cupples LA, Relkin NR, Whitehouse PJ, Brown T,... Farrer LA (2009). Disclosure of APOE Genotype for Risk of Alzheimer’s Disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(3), 245– 254. doi:doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0809578 19605829 PMC2778270 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hegde M, Bale S, Bayrak-Toydemir P, Gibson J, Bone Jeng LJ, Joseph L,... Mao R (2015). Reporting Incidental Findings in Genomic Scale Clinical Sequencing—A Clinical Laboratory Perspective. The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, 17(2), 107– 117. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2014.10.004 25684271 PMC5707203 · DOI
  17. Heshka J, Palleschi C, Wilson B, Brehaut J, Rutberg J, Etchegary H,... Wells PS (2008). Cognitive and behavioural effects of genetic testing for thrombophilia. J Genet Couns, 17(3), 288– 296. doi: 10.1007/s10897-008-9148-1 18288592 · DOI
  18. Hietaranta-Luoma HL, Luomala HT, Puolijoki H, & Hopia A (2015). Using ApoE Genotyping to Promote Healthy Lifestyles in Finland – Psychological Impacts: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 24(6), 908– 921. doi: 10.1007/s10897-015-9826-8 25735442 · DOI
  19. Hietaranta-Luoma HL, Tahvonen R, Iso-Touru T, Puolijoki H, & Hopia A (2014). An intervention study of individual, apoE genotype-based dietary and physical-activity advice: impact on health behavior. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics, 7(3), 161– 174. doi: 10.1159/000371743 25720616 · DOI
  20. Hirschberg AM, Chan-Smutko G, & Pirl WF (2015). Psychiatric implications of cancer genetic testing. Cancer, 121(3), 341– 360. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28879 25234846 · DOI
  21. Hollands GJ, French DP, Griffin SJ, Prevost AT, Sutton S, King S, & Marteau TM (2016). The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis. Bmj, 352, i1102. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1102 26979548 PMC4793156 · DOI
  22. Kasparian NA, Meiser B, Butow PN, Simpson JM, & Mann GJ (2009). Genetic testing for melanoma risk: a prospective cohort study of uptake and outcomes among Australian families. Genetics in Medicine, 11(4), 265– 278. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181993175 19265718 · DOI
  23. Kullo IJ, Jouni H, Austin EE, Brown S-A, Kruisselbrink TM, Isseh IN,... Bailey KR (2016). Incorporating a Genetic Risk Score into Coronary Heart Disease Risk Estimates: Effect on LDL Cholesterol Levels (the MIGENES Clinical Trial). Circulation. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.115.020109 PMC4803581 26915630 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Landsbergen K, Prins J, Brunner H, Kraaimaat F, & Hoogerbrugge N (2009). Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome in the first year of colorectal cancer: a review of the psychological impact. Familial Cancer, 8(4), 325– 337. doi: 10.1007/s10689-009-9239-7 19330464 PMC2771129 · DOI
  25. Leblond D, Bredart A, Dolbeault S, De Pauw A, Lyonnet DS, Flahault C, & Sultan S (2011). Cognitive, emotional and behavioral impact of an uncertain outcome after study of BRCA1/2: review of the literature. Bulletin Du Cancer, 98(2), 184– 198. doi: 10.1684/bdc.2011.1309 21382771 · DOI
  26. Legnani C, Razzaboni E, Gremigni P, Ricci Bitti PE, Favaretto E, & Palareti G (2006). Psychological impact of testing for thrombophilic alterations. Thromb Haemost, 96(3), 348– 355. doi: 10.1160/th06-01-0015 16953278 · DOI
  27. Lipsey MW, & Wilson DB (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  28. Manolio TA, Collins FS, Cox NJ, Goldstein DB, Hindorff LA, Hunter DJ,... Visscher PM (2009). Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature, 461(7265), 747– 753. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08494 19812666 PMC2831613 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Mardis ER (2011). A decade’s perspective on DNA sequencing technology. Nature, 470(7333), 198– 203. doi: 10.1038/nature09796 21307932 · DOI
  30. Meiser B, & Dunn S (2001). Psychological effect of genetic testing for Huntington’s disease: an update of the literature. Western Journal of Medicine, 174(5), 336– 340. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071392/ 11342513 PMC1071392
  31. Patay BA, & Topol EJ (2012). The Unmet Need of Education in Genomic Medicine. The American Journal of Medicine, 125(1), 5– 6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.05.005 22195527 · DOI
  32. Peters J, & Mengersen K (2008). Selective Reporting of Adjusted Estimates in Observational Epidemiology Studies: Reasons and Implications for Meta-analyses. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 31(4), 370– 389. doi: 10.1177/0163278708324438 19000980 · DOI
  33. Sanderson SC, Humphries SE, Hubbart C, Hughes E, Jarvis MJ, & Wardle J (2008). Psychological and behavioural impact of genetic testing smokers for lung cancer risk: a phase II exploratory trial. J Health Psychol, 13(4), 481– 494. doi: 10.1177/1359105308088519 18420756 · DOI
  34. Sanderson SC, O’Neill SC, White DB, Bepler G, Bastian L, Lipkus IM, & McBride CM (2009). Responses to online GSTM1 genetic test results among smokers related to patients with lung cancer: a pilot study. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 18(7), 1953– 1961. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-08-0620 PMC3417294 19567511 · DOI
  35. Telenti A, Pierce LCT, Biggs WH, di Iulio J, Wong EHM, Fabani MM,... Venter JC (2016). Deep sequencing of 10,000 human genomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(42), 11901– 11906. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1613365113 PMC5081584 27702888 · DOI
  36. Timman R, Roos R, Maat-Kievit A, & Tibben A (2004). Adverse effects of predictive testing for Huntington disease underestimated: long-term effects 7–10 years after the test. Health Psychol, 23(2), 189– 197. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.23.2.189 15008664 · DOI
  37. Vansenne F, Bossuyt PMM, & de Borgie C (2009). Evaluating the Psychological Effects of Genetic Testing in Symptomatic Patients: A Systematic Review. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers, 13(5), 555– 563. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2009.0029 19645624 · DOI
  38. Vernarelli JA, Roberts JS, Hiraki S, Chen CA, Cupples LA, & Green RC (2010). Effect of Alzheimer disease genetic risk disclosure on dietary supplement use. Am J Clin Nutr, 91(5), 1402– 1407. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28981 20219963 PMC2854909 · DOI
  39. Viechtbauer W (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 36(3), 1– 48. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/io3
  40. Voils CI, Crandell JL, Chang Y, Leeman J, & Sandelowski M (2011). Combining adjusted and unadjusted findings in mixed research synthesis. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 17(3), 429– 434. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01444.x 21040243 PMC3063329 · DOI
  41. Wampold BE, Mondin GW, Moody M, Stich F, Benson K,, & Ahn H (1997). A meta-analysis of outcome studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empiricially, “all must have prizes.”. Psychological Bulletin, 122(3).
  42. Yu J-H, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, & Bamshad MJ (2013). Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model. Genetics in Medicine, 15(9), 684– 690. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.35 23619276 PMC4010112 · DOI
  43. Zorzetto M, Russi E, Senn O, Imboden M, Ferrarotti I, Tinelli C,... Probst-Hensch N (2008). SERPINA1 gene variants in individuals from the general population with reduced alpha1-antitrypsin concentrations. Clin Chem, 54(8), 1331– 1338. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.102798 18515255 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frieser, M. J., Wilson, S., & Vrieze, S.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
ORCID
Venue
Health Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2018-12
Volume
37
Issue
12
Pages
1134-1144
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
DOI
10.1037/hea0000683
PMC
PMC6263735
OpenAlex
W2897383960
Cited by
67
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7
FWCI
4.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01DA037904, K01DA037280)
  • University of Michigan (R21DA040177, R01AA023974, and R01HG008983)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
genetic risk information, complex diseases, behavior change, psychological impact, genetic testing, Alzheimer's disease, cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease, lung cancer, melanoma, thrombophilia, type 2 diabetes, health behavior
MeSH terms
Disease, Genetic Testing, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review