Patients, evidence and genes: An exploration of GPs' perspectives on gene-based personalized nutrition advice

Family Practice

Volumn 25, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2009, Pages

  Bouwman, Laura ^a   Molder, Herwig ^a   Hiddink, Gerrit ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Behavioural sciences; Genetics; Health promotion; Nutrition; Qualitative research

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; DECISION MAKING; GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH PROMOTION; NUTRIGENOMICS; NUTRITION EDUCATION; NUTRITIONAL COUNSELING; NUTRITIONAL HEALTH; PATIENT MONITORING; PATIENT SELECTION; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; GENETICS; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NUTRITION; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; NUTRIGENOMICS; NUTRITIONAL PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCES; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PHYSICIANS, FAMILY; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL;

EID: 65849506846     PISSN: 02632136     EISSN: 14602229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmn067     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. Debusk RM, Fogarty CP, Ordovas JM, Kornman KS. Nutritional genomics in practice: where do we begin? J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 105: 589-598.
2. WHO. Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/ strategy_english_web.pdf (accessed on September 22, 2008).
3. Kreijl C, Knaap A, Van Raaij J. Our Food, Our Health. Healthy Diet and Safe Food in The Netherlands. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: RIVM, 2006, Report no: RIVM 270555009.
4. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (Netherlands). Living Longer in Good Health. Also a Question of a Healthy Lifestyle. The Hague, The Netherlands: Dutch Ministry of Health and Welfare and Sports, 2004.
5. Brug J, Oenema A, Campbell M. Past, present, and future of computer-tailored nutrition education. Am J Clin Nutr 2003; 77: 1028S-1034S.
6. Contento I, Bach G, Bronner Y et al. The effectiveness of nutrition education and implications for nutrition education policy, programs and research: a review of research. J Nutr Educ 1995; 27: 277-420.
7. Kroeze W, Werkman A, Brug J. A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors. Ann Behav Med 2006; 31: 205-223.
8. Brug J, Glanz K, Van Assema P, Kok G, van Breukelen G. The impact of computer-tailored feedback and iterative feedback on fat, fruit, and vegetable intake. Health Educ Behav 1998; 25: 517-531.
9. Kreuter MW, Farrell D, Levitch L, Brennan L. Tailored Health Messages: Customizing Communication with Computer Technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999.
10. Curry S, Grothaus L, Wagner E. A randomized trial of self-help materials, personalized feedback, and telephone counselling with non-volunteer smokers. J Consult Clin Psychol 2005; 63: 1005-1014.
11. Eng T. Population health technologies; emerging innovations for the health of the public. Am J Prev Med 2004; 26: 237-242.
12. De Bourdeaudhuij I, Brug J. Tailoring dietary feedback to reduce fat intake: an intervention at the family level. Health Educ Res 2000; 15: 449-462.
13. Kreuter MW, Stretcher VJ. Do tailored behaviour change messages enhance the effectiveness of health risk appraisals? Results from a randomized trial. Health Educ Res 1996; 11: 97-105.
14. Brug J, Campbell M, van Assema P. The application and impact of computer-generated personalized nutrition education: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 1999; 36: 145-156.
15. Brug J, Steenhuis I, van Assema P, de Vries H. The impact of a computer-tailored nutrition intervention. Prev Med 1996; 25: 236-242.
16. NuGO. The European Nutrigenomics Organisation. http://www.nugo.org/everyone (accessed on September 22, 2008).
17. Ordovas J, Shyong Tai E. Gene-environment interactions: where we are and where we should be going. In Castle D, Ries N (eds). Nutrition and Genomics; Issues of Ethics, Regulation and Communications. San Diego, CA: Elsevier (in press).
18. GAO. Nutrigenetic Testing; Tests Purchased from Four Web Sites Mislead Consumers. Washington, DC: United States Governmental Accountability Office, 2006.
19. Bubela TM, Taylor B. Nutrigenomics, Mass media and Commercialization Pressures. Health Law Review 2008; 16 (3).
20. Schmidt D, White C, Reinhardt Kapsak W, Conway J, Baily E. U.S. consumer attitudes toward personalized nutrition. In Kok F, Bouwman L, Desiere F (eds). Personalized Nutrition, Principles and Applications, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2007: 205-219.
21. Sanderson SC, Wardle J. Associations between anticipated reactions to genetic test results and interest in genetic testing: will self-selection reduce the potential for harm? Genet Test 2008; 12 (1): 59-66.
22. Görman U. Ethical issues raised by personalized nutrition based on genetic information. Genes Nutr 2006; 1 (1): 13-22.
23. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2001.
24. Canadian Food Information Council NIoN-CFI. Tracking Nutrition Trends V. http://www.ccfn.ca/pdfs/TNTV-FINAL.pdf (accessed on September 22, 2008).
25. Van Dillen S, Hiddink G, Koelen M, de Graaf C, van Woerkum C. Perceived relevance and information needs regarding food topics and preferred information sources among Dutch adults: results of a quantitative consumer. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2004; 58: 1306-1313.
26. Baruch S, Kaufman D, Hudson K. U.S. Public Opinion on Uses of Genetic Information and Genetic Discrimination (white paper). American Medical Association. http://www.dnapolicy.org/resources/ GINAPublic_Opinion_Genetic_Information_Discrimination.pdf. 2007 (accessed on September 22, 2008).
27. Wilsdon J, Willis R. See-through Science; Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: DEMOS, 2004.
28. Rip A. Co-evolution of Science, Technology and Society. Expert Review for Bundesministerium Bildung und Forchung Förderinitiative Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002.
29. Collingridge D. The Social Control of Technology. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980.
30. Green L, Kreuter M. Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. 4th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
31. Fisher E, Mahajan RL, Mitcham C. Midstreammodulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2006; 26: 485-496.
32. Burke W, Khoury M, Stewart A, Zimmern R. The path from genome-based research to population health: development of an international public health genomics network. Genet Med 2006; 8: 451-458.
33. Granner ML, Sharpe PA. Evaluating community coalition characteristics and functioning: a summary of measurement tools. Health Educ Res 2004; 19: 514-532.
34. Kreuter MW, Lezin NA, Young LA. Evaluating community-based collaborative mechanisms: implications for practitioners. Health Promot Pract 2000; 1: 49-63.
35. Colleges AoAM. Medical School Graduation Questionnaire, Final All Schools Report. Association of American Medical Colleges, Division of Medical Education. http://www.aamc.org/data/gq/allschoolsreports/ 2005.pdf. 2005 (accessed on September 22, 2008).
36. Farrel J. Health professional capacity in nutrition and genetics-a Canadian case study. In Castle D, Ries N (eds). Nutrition and Genomics; Issues of Ethics, Law, Regulation and Communication, San Diego, CA: Elsevier (in press).
37. Visser FN, Hiddink G, KoelenM, Binsbergen Jv, Tobi H,Woerkum vC. Longitudinal changes in task perception, self-efficacy, barriers and practices of nutrition education and treatment of overweight in general practitioners. Fam Pract 2008; (in press).
38. Harris R, Challen K, Benjamin C, Harris H. Genetic education for non-geneticist health professionals. Community Genet 2006; 9: 224-226.
39. Johnson JM. In-depth interviewing. In Gubrium JF, Holstein JA (eds). Handbook of Interview Research; Context and Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002: 103-119.
40. Bouwman L, Hiddink G, Koelen M, Korthals M, van't Veer P, van Woerkum C. Personalized nutrition communication through ICT application: how to overcome the gap between potential effectiveness and reality. Eur J CardiovascNurs 2005; 59: 108-116.
41. Bouwman L, te Molder H. About evidence-based and beyond: a discourse-analytic study on stakeholders' talk on involvement in the early development of personalized nutrition. Health Educ Res 2008; Advance Access published on May 21, 2008; doi:10.1093/her/cyn016.