With the rising number of individuals affected with diabetes and the significant health care costs of treatment, the emphasis on prevention is key to controlling the health burden of this disease. Several genetic and genomic studies have identified genetic variants associated with increased risk to diabetes. As a result, commercial testing is available to predict an individual's genetic risk. Although the clinical benefits of testing have not yet been demonstrated, it is worth considering some of the ethical implications of testing for this common chronic disease. In this article, I discuss several issues that should be considered during the translation of predictive testing for diabetes, including familial implications, improvement of risk communication, implications for behavioral change and health outcomes, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, direct-to-consumer testing, and appropriate age of testing.
American Diabetes Association. Economic consequences of diabetes mellitus in the U.S. in 1997. Diabetes Care.1998;21 (2): 296–309.
2.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet: general information and national estimates on diabetes in the United States, 2007. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008.
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Incidence of diabetes: crude and age-adjusted incidence of diagnosed diabetes per 1,000 population aged 18–79 years, United States, 1980–2007. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/incidence/fig2.htm. Accessed October 2008.
4.
O'RahillySBarrosoIWarehamNJ. Genetic factors in type 2 diabetes: the end of the beginning?Science.2005;307 (5708): 370–3.
5.
Freely associating. Nat Genet.1999;22 (1): 1–2.
6.
ZegginiEWeedonMNLindgrenCMFraylingTMElliottKSLangoHTimpsonNJPerryJRRaynerNWFreathyRMBarrettJCShieldsBMorrisAPEllardSGrovesCJHarriesLWMarchiniJLOwenKRKnightBCardonLRWalkerMHitmanGAMorrisADDoneyAS, Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC), McCarthy MI, Hattersley AT. Replication of genome-wide association signals in UK samples reveals risk loci for type 2 diabetes. Science.2007;316 (5829): 1336–41.
7.
HaririSYoonPWQureshiNValdezRScheunerMTKhouryMJ. Family history of type 2 diabetes: a population-based screening tool for prevention?Genet Med.2006;8 (2): 102–8.
8.
BrownsonRCRemingtonPLDavisJR. Chronic disease epidemiology and control. 2nd ed.Washington DC: American Public Health Association; 1998.
9.
HarrisonTAHindorffLAKimHWinesRCBowenDJMcGrathBBEdwardsKL. Family history of diabetes as a potential public health tool. Am J Prev Med.2003;24 (2): 152–9.
10.
ValdezRYoonPWLiuTKhouryMJ. Family history and prevalence of diabetes in the US population: 6-year results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1999 2004). Diabetes.2007. [Epub ahead of print.].
GaffCLClarkeAJAtkinsonPSivellSElwynGIredaleRThorntonHDundonJShawCEdwardsA. Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet.2007;15 (10): 999–1011.
13.
Julian-ReynierCEisingerFVenninPChabalFAurranYNoguèsCBignonYJMachelard-RoumagnacMMaugard-LouboutinCSerinDBlancBOrsoniPSobolH. Attitudes towards cancer predictive testing and transmission of information to the family. J Med Genet.1996;33 (9): 731–6.
14.
GreenJRichardsMMurtonFStathamHHallowellN. Family communication and genetic counseling: the case of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns.1997;6 (1): 45–60.
15.
McInerney-LeoABieseckerBBHadleyDWKaseRGGiambarresiTRJohnsonELermanCStruewingJP. BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families II: impact on relationships. Am J Med Genet A.2005;133A (2): 165–9.
16.
StoffelEMFordBMercadoRCPungliaDKohlmannWConradPBlancoAShannonKMPowellMGruberSBTerdimanJChungDCSyngalS. Sharing genetic test results in Lynch syndrome: communication with close and distant relatives. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol.2008;6 (3): 333–8.
17.
ClaesEEvers-KieboomsGBoogaertsADecruyenaereMDenayerLLegiusE. Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet A.2003;116A (1): 11–9.
18.
CostalasJ WagnerItzenMMalickJBabbJSBoveBGodwinAKDalyMB. Communication of BRCA1 and BRCA2 results to at-risk relatives: a cancer risk assessment program's experience. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet.2003;119C (1): 11–8.
19.
AymeSMacquart-MoulinGJulian-ReynierCChabalFGiraudF. Diffusion of information about genetic risk within families. Neuromuscul Disord.1993;3 (5–6): 571–4.
20.
DalyMBBarsevickAMillerSMBuckmanRCostalasJMontgomerySBinglerR. Communicating genetic test results to the family: a six-step, skills-building strategy. Fam Community Health.2001;24 (3): 13–26.
21.
TercyakKPHughesCMainDSnyderCLynchJFLynchHTLermanC. Parental communication of BRCA1/2 genetic test results to children. Patient Educ Couns.2001;42 (3): 213–24.
22.
TercyakKPPeshkinBNDemarcoTAPatenaudeAFSchneiderKAGarberJEValdimarsdottirHBSchwartzMD. Information needs of mothers regarding communicating BRCA1/2 cancer genetic test results to their children. Genet Test.2007;11 (3): 249–55.
23.
NaderPRSellersDEJohnsonCCPerryCLStoneEJCookKCBebchukJLuepkerRV. The effect of adult participation in a school-based family intervention to improve children's diet and physical activity: the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health. Prev Med.1996;25 (4): 455–64.
24.
CooksonSHeathABertrandL. The HeartSmart Family Fun Pack: an evaluation of family-based intervention for cardiovascular risk reduction in children. Can J Public Health.2000;91 (4): 256–9.
25.
GolanMWeizmanA. Familial approach to the treatment of childhood obesity: conceptual mode. J Nutr Educ.2001;33 (2): 102–7.
26.
KardiaSLModellSMPeyserPA. Family-centered approaches to understanding and preventing coronary heart disease. Am J Prev Med.2003;24 (2): 143–51.
27.
FalkMJDuganRBO'RiordanMAMatthewsALRobinNH. Medical geneticists' duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease. Am J Med Genet A.2003;120A (3): 374–80.
28.
DuganRBWiesnerGLJuengstETO'RiordanMMatthewsALRobinNH. Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease: genetic counselors' clinical experience. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet.2003;119C (1): 27–34.
29.
Pate v. Threlkel. 661 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1995).
30.
Safer v. Estate of Pack. 677 A.2d 1188 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996).
31.
OffitKGroegerETurnerSWadsworthEAWeiserMA. The “duty to warn” a patient's family members about hereditary disease risks. JAMA.2004;292 (12): 1469–73.
32.
Chan-SmutkoGPatelDShannonKMRyanPD. Professional challenges in cancer genetic testing: who is the patient?Oncologist.2008;13 (3): 232–8.
33.
The American Society of Human Genetics Social Issues Subcommittee on Familial Disclosure. ASHG statement. Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. Am J Hum Genet.1998;62 (2): 474–83.
34.
FanosJH. The missing link in linkage analysis: the well sibling revisited. Genet Test.1999;3 (3): 273–8.
35.
FanosJHJohnsonJP. Perception of carrier status by cystic fibrosis siblings. Am J Hum Genet.1995;57 (2): 431–8.
36.
SaukkoPMEllardSRichardsSHShepherdMHCampbellJL. Patients' understanding of genetic susceptibility testing in mainstream medicine: qualitative study on thrombophilia. BMC Health Serv Res.2007;7: 82.
37.
HarrisonHFHarrisonBWWalkerAPLohmanKEllisSDHallMAReissJAdamsPCHolupJActonRTBentTRiversCFadojutimi-AkinsikuM. Screening for hemochromatosis and iron overload: satisfaction with results notification and understanding of mailed results in unaffected participants of the HEIRS study. Genet Test.2008;12 (4): 491–500.
38.
HuntKEmslieCWattG. Lay constructions of a family history of heart disease: potential for misunderstandings in the clinical encounter?Lancet.2001;357 (9263): 1168–71.
39.
CroyleRTLermanC. Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr.1999;25: 59–66.
40.
Aktan-CollanKHaukkalaAMecklinJPUutelaAKääriäinenH. Comprehension of cancer risk one and 12 months after predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. J Med Genet.2001;38 (11): 787–92.
41.
ShilohS. Illness representations, self-regulation, and genetic counseling: a theoretical review. J Genet Couns.2006;15 (5): 325–37.
42.
DeVriesHMestersIvan de SteegHHoningC. The general public's information needs and perceptions regarding hereditary cancer: an application of the Integrated Change Model. Patient Educ Couns.2005;56 (2): 154–65.
43.
FroschDLMelloPLermanC. Behavioral consequences of testing for obesity risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.2005;14 (6): 1485–9.
44.
MarteauTSeniorVHumphriesSEBobrowMCranstonTCrookMADayLFernandezMHorneRIversenAJacksonZLynasJMiddleton-PriceHSavineRSikorskiJWatsonMWeinmanJWierzbickiASWrayR, Genetic Risk Assessment for FH Trial Study Group. Psychological impact of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia within a previously aware population: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med Genet A.2004;128A (3): 285–93.
45.
RoseALPetersNSheaJAArmstrongK. Attitudes and misconceptions about predictive genetic testing for cancer risk. Community Genet.2005;8 (3): 145–51.
46.
RoseAPetersNSheaJAArmstrongK. The association between knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing for cancer risk in the United States. J Health Commun.2005;10 (4): 309–21.
47.
LipkusIM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making.2007;27 (5): 696–713.
48.
CatzDSGreenNSTobinJNLloyd-PuryearMAKylerPUmemotoACernochJBrownRWolmanF. Attitudes about genetics in underserved, culturally diverse populations. Community Genet.2005;8 (3): 161–72.
49.
BatesBRLynchJABevanJLConditCM. Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research. Soc Sci Med.2005;60 (2): 331–44.
50.
BrunkCG. Public knowledge, public trust: understanding the “knowledge deficit.”Community Genet.2006;9 (3): 178–83.
51.
Cunningham-BurleyS. Public knowledge and public trust. Community Genet.2006;9 (3): 204–10.
52.
BatesBR. Public culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study. Public Underst Sci.2005;14 (1): 47–65.
53.
ScottSPriorLWoodFGrayJ. Repositioning the patient: the implications of being “at risk.”Soc Sci Med.2005;60 (8): 1869–79.
54.
Van der SandenMCAMeijmanFJ. Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: an essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches. Public Understanding Sci.2008;17 (1): 89–103.
55.
WynneB. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music?Community Genet.2006;9 (3): 211–20.
56.
GottweisH. Gene therapy and the public: a matter of trust. Gene Ther.2002;9 (11): 667–9.
57.
KnowlerWCBarrett-ConnorEFowlerSEHammanRFLachinJMWalkerEANathanDM, Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med.2002;346 (6): 393–403.
58.
FlorezJCJablonskiKABayleyNPollinTIde BakkerPIShuldinerARKnowlerWCNathanDMAltshulerDDiabetes Prevention Program Research Group. TCF7L2 polymorphisms and progression to diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Program. N Engl J Med.2006;355 (3): 241–50.
59.
MarteauTMLermanC. Genetic risk and behavioural change. BMJ.2001;322 (7293): 1056–9.
60.
McBrideCMBeplerGLipkusIMLynaPSamsaGAlbrightJDattaSRimerBK. Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.2002;11 (6): 521–8.
61.
PhillipsKAJenkinsMALindemanGJMcLachlanSAMcKinleyJMWeidemanPCHopperJLFriedlanderML, kConFab Investigators. Risk-reducing surgery, screening and chemoprevention practices of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study. Clin Genet.2006;70 (3): 198–206.
62.
MeiserBDunnSDixonJPowellLW. Psychological adjustment and knowledge about hereditary hemochromatosis in a clinic-based sample: a prospective study. J Genet Couns.2005;14 (6): 453–63.
63.
PeshkinBNSchwartzMDIsaacsCHughesCMainDLermanC. Utilization of breast cancer screening in a clinically based sample of women after BRCA1/2 testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.2002;11 (10 Pt 1): 1115–8.
64.
AntillYCReynoldsJYoungMAKirkJATuckerKMBogtstraTLWongSSDuddingTEDi IulioJLPhillipsKA. Screening behavior in women at increased familial risk for breast cancer. Fam Cancer.2006;5 (4): 359–68.
65.
ChaoSRobertsJSMarteauTMSillimanRCupplesLAGreenRC. Health behavior changes after genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: The REVEAL Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord.2008;22 (1): 94–7.
66.
SandersonSCMichieS. Genetic testing for heart disease susceptibility: potential impact on motivation to quit smoking. Clin Genet.2007;71 (6): 501–10.
67.
HickenBTuckerD. Impact of genetic risk feedback: perceived risk and motivation for health protective behaviours. Psychol Health Med.2002;7 (1): 25–36.
68.
Moss-MorrisRPetrieKJ. Cognitive distortions of somatic experiences: revision and validation of a measure. J Psychosom Res.1997;43 (3): 293–306.
69.
ReesGFryACullASuttonS. Illness perceptions and distress in women at increased risk of breast cancer. Psychol Health.2004;19 (6): 749–65.
70.
KapteinAAvan KorlaarIMCameronLDVossenCYvan der MeerFJRosendaalFR. Using the common-sense model to predict risk perception and disease-related worry in individuals at increased risk for venous thrombosis. Health Psychol.2007;26 (6): 807–12.
71.
MarteauTMWeinmanJ. Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Soc Sci Med.2006;62 (6): 1360–8.
72.
CameronLDDiefenbachMA. Responses to information about psychosocial consequences of genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: influences of cancer worry and risk perceptions. J Health Psychol.2001;6 (1): 47–59.
73.
CameronLDReeveJ. Risk perceptions, worry, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Psychol Health.2006;21 (2): 211–30.
74.
SmerecnikCMMestersIvan KeulenHScheffersIBeeksEDe LeeuwPWde VriesNKde VriesH. Should individuals be informed about their salt sensitivity status? First indications of the value of testing for genetic predisposition to low-risk conditions. Genet Test.2007;11 (3): 307–14.
75.
JohnsonJDMeischkeH. A comprehensive model of cancer-related information seeking applied to magazines. Human Commun Res.1993;19 (3): 343–67.
76.
PerryCFBauerKD. Effect of printed tailored messaging on cancer risk behavior. Top Clin Nutr.2001;16 (2): 42–52.
77.
RamanadhanSViswanathK. Health and the information nonseeker: a profile. Health Commun.2006;20 (2): 131–9.
78.
RuttenLJSquiersLHesseB. Cancer-related information seeking: hints from the 2003 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Health Commun.2006;11Suppl 1: 147–56.
79.
BaruchSHudsonK. Civilian and military genetics: nondiscrimination policy in a post-GINA world. Am J Hum Genet.2008;83 (4): 435–44.
80.
HudsonKLRothenbergKHAndrewsLBKahnMJCollinsFS. Genetic discrimination and health insurance: an urgent need for reform. Science.1995;270 (5235): 391–3.
81.
OffitKThomP. Ethical and legal aspects of cancer genetic testing. Semin Oncol.2007;34 (5): 435–43.
PenzinerEWilliamsJKErwinCBombardYWallisABeglingerLJHaydenMRPaulsenJS. Perceptions of discrimination among persons who have undergone predictive testing for Huntington's disease. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet.2008;147 (3): 320–5.
84.
Public Law 110–233. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.
85.
SlaughterLM. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act: why your personal genetics are still vulnerable to discrimination. Surg Clin North Am.2008;88 (4): 723–38, vi.
86.
HudsonKLHolohanMKCollinsFS. Keeping pace with the times—the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. N Engl J Med.2008;358 (25): 2661–3.
87.
ZickCDMathewsCJRobertsJSCook-DeeganRPokorskiRJGreenRC. Genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease and its impact on insurance purchasing behavior. Health Aff (Millwood).2005;24 (2): 483–90.
88.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: evaluating direct-to-consumer marketing—Atlanta, Denver, Raleigh-Durham, and Seattle, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.2004;53 (27): 603–6.
89.
MouchawarJHensley-AlfordSLaurionSEllisJKulchak-RahmAFinucaneMLMeenanRAxellLPollackRRitzwollerD. Impact of direct-to-consumer advertising for hereditary breast cancer testing on genetic services at a managed care organization: a naturally-occurring experiment. Genet Med.2005;7 (3): 191–7.
90.
MouchawarJLaurionSRitzwollerDPEllisJKulchak-RahmAHensley-AlfordS. Assessing controversial direct-to-consumer advertising for hereditary breast cancer testing: reactions from women and their physicians in a managed care organization. Am J Manag Care.2005;11 (10): 601–8.
91.
HogarthSJavittGMelzerD. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet.2008;9: 161–82.
92.
GoddardKARobitailleJDowlingNFParradoARFishmanJBradleyLAMooreCAKhouryMJ. Health-related direct-to-consumer genetic tests: a public health assessment and analysis of practices related to Internet-based tests for risk of thrombosis. Public Health Genomics.2009;12 (2): 92–104.
93.
GollustSEHullSCWilfondBS. Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA.2002;288 (14): 1762–7.
94.
HullSCPrasadK. Reading between the lines: direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic testing. Hastings Cent Rep.2001;31 (3): 33–5.
95.
Williams-JonesB. Where there's a web, there's a way: commercial genetic testing and the Internet. Community Genet.2003;6 (1): 46–57.
96.
American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors, American College of Medical Genetics Board of Directors. Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am J Hum Genet.1995;57 (5): 1233–41.
97.
ClarkeA. The genetic testing of children. Working Party of the Clinical Genetics Society (UK). J Med Genet.1994;31 (10): 785–97.
98.
NelsonRMBotkjinJRKodishEDLevetownMTrumanJTWilfondBSHarrisonCEKazuraAKrugE3rdSchwartzPADonovanGKFallatMPorterIHSteinbergD, Committee on Bioethics. Ethical issues with genetic testing in pediatrics. Pediatrics.2001;107 (6): 1451–5.
