Trial reportPLoS medicine2016
Lifestyle Advice Combined with Personalized Estimates of Genetic or Phenotypic Risk of Type 2 Diabetes, and Objectively Measured Physical Activity: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03234322 (A Cluster Randomized Trial to Investigate the Impact of a Type 2 Diabetes Risk Prediction Model on Change in Physical Activity Within Routine Health Checks in Primary Care.), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Cluster Randomized Trial to Investigate the Impact of a Type 2 Diabetes Risk Prediction Model on Change in Physical Activity Within Routine Health Checks in Primary Care.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Are There Any Effective Behavior Change Strategies for Communicating Genetic Risk in Obesity Prevention and Body Weight Reduction Interventions?Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Pooled it
- Measurement of Perceived Risk of Developing Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators for Population Genetic Screening in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Pooled it
- Does Personalized Nutrition Advice Improve Dietary Intake in Healthy Adults? A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Patient education and counseling · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of personal genomic risk information on melanoma prevention behaviors and psychological outcomes: a randomized controlled trial.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Protocol of a cluster randomized trial to investigate the impact of a type 2 diabetes risk prediction model on change in physical activity in primary care.BMC endocrine disorders · 2018Trial
- Effects of polygenic risk score communication on short term health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ medicine · 2026Article
- The impact of supplementing traditional risk information with polygenic risk score concerning type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease on health behavior: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Personalising dietary advice for disease prevention: concepts and experiences.Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Precision Nutrition Unveiled: Gene-Nutrient Interactions, Microbiota Dynamics, and Lifestyle Factors in Obesity Management.Nutrients · 2024Review
- Precision Nutrition to Improve Risk Factors of Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes.Current nutrition reports · 2023Review
- Advancing the communication of genetic risk for cardiometabolic diseases: a critical interpretive synthesis.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- A Social and Ethical Framework for Providing Health Information Obtained from Combining Genetics and Fitness Tracking Data.Technology in society · 2023Article
- Components, prospects and challenges of personalized prevention.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Diabetes precision medicine: plenty of potential, pitfalls and perils but not yet ready for prime time.Diabetologia · 2022Review
- Do gene-environment interactions have implications for the precision prevention of type 2 diabetes?Diabetologia · 2022Review
- Effects of diet education on empowerment for individuals who have an increased risk of developing breast or colon cancer: A pilot study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInformation about genetic and phenotypic risk of type 2 diabetes is now widely available and is being incorporated into disease prevention programs. Whether such information motivates behavior change or has adverse effects is uncertain. We examined the effect of communicating an estimate of genetic or phenotypic risk of type 2 diabetes in a parallel group, open, randomized controlled trial. METHODS AND
findingsWe recruited 569 healthy middle-aged adults from the Fenland Study, an ongoing population-based, observational study in the east of England (Cambridgeshire, UK). We used a computer-generated random list to assign participants in blocks of six to receive either standard lifestyle advice alone (control group, n = 190) or in combination with a genetic (n = 189) or a phenotypic (n = 190) risk estimate for type 2 diabetes (intervention groups). After 8 wk, we measured the primary outcome, objectively measured physical activity (kJ/kg/day), and also measured several secondary outcomes (including self-reported diet, self-reported weight, worry, anxiety, and perceived risk). The study was powered to detect a between-group difference of 4.1 kJ/kg/d at follow-up. 557 (98%) participants completed the trial. There were no significant intervention effects on physical activity (difference in adjusted mean change from baseline: genetic risk group versus control group 0.85 kJ/kg/d (95% CI -2.07 to 3.77, p = 0.57); phenotypic risk group versus control group 1.32 (95% CI -1.61 to 4.25, p = 0.38); and genetic risk group versus phenotypic risk group -0.47 (95% CI -3.40 to 2.46, p = 0.75). No significant differences in self-reported diet, self-reported weight, worry, and anxiety were observed between trial groups. Estimates of perceived risk were significantly more accurate among those who received risk information than among those who did not. Key limitations include the recruitment of a sample that may not be representative of the UK population, use of self-reported secondary outcome measures, and a short follow-up period.
conclusionsIn this study, we did not observe short-term changes in behavior associated with the communication of an estimate of genetic or phenotypic risk of type 2 diabetes. We also did not observe changes in worry or anxiety in the study population. Additional research is needed to investigate the conditions under which risk information might enhance preventive strategies. (Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09650496; Date applied: April 4, 2011; Date assigned: June 10, 2011).
trial registrationThe trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN09650496.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.