Are There Any Effective Behavior Change Strategies for Communicating Genetic Risk in Obesity Prevention and Body Weight Reduction Interventions?
Zofia Szczuka, Paulina Krzywicka, Anna Kornafel et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This preregistered systematic review assessed whether intervention components influence the effects of genetic risk communication on obesity-related outcomes. It included 23 randomized controlled trials covering 18 intervention trials and used narrative synthesis to compare intervention and control content. Genetic risk communication alone, or combined with phenotype-based risk, was ineffective and sometimes counterproductive among low-risk individuals. Personalized behavioral counseling showed more favorable results, particularly in high-genetic-risk subgroups, although benefits were reported against waitlist or non-personalized counseling comparators. The most promising interventions combined genetic risk communication with multiple behavior change techniques across several sessions.
Key findings
- The review included 23 randomized controlled trials covering 18 intervention trials.
- Genetic risk communication alone or with phenotype-based risk was ineffective and sometimes counterproductive among low-risk individuals.
- Personalized counseling showed significant effects in high-genetic-risk subgroups when it included techniques such as problem-solving, behavioral feedback, and self-monitoring.
- Complex, multisession interventions combining genetic risk communication with multiple behavior change techniques had the most promising results for weight, nutrition, and exercise outcomes.
Why it matters
The findings suggest that communicating genetic risk by itself is unlikely to support obesity-related behavior change and may not benefit people classified as low risk. Outcomes appear more promising when risk information is embedded in personalized counseling and practical behavior change support. This distinction can inform the design and interpretation of genetic risk communication interventions, while recognizing that the evidence varies by comparator and intervention content.
What to keep in mind
The review used narrative synthesis because interventions and comparators differed, limiting direct comparison across studies. The abstract reports no pooled effect estimate.