Community attitudes to genetic susceptibility-based mental health interventions for healthy people in a large national sample

BackgroundDespite an apparent high interest in predictive genetic testing for common multifactorial disorders, few data describe anticipated health behaviour as a consequence of such testing.MethodsA large population-based public survey with community dwelling adults (N = 1046) ascertained through random digit dialling. Attitudes were assessed via structured interviews.ResultsIntention to start therapies or courses to learn to develop better strategies to cope with stress (80%) was significantly and positively associated with self-estimation of risk for major depressive disorder as higher than average (ß = 0.12, p = 0.001); endorsement of family environment as a causal attribution (ß = 0.11, p < 0.001); and endorsement of gene-environment interaction as a causal mechanism of mental illness (ß = 0.12, p = 0.017). Intention to modify potential life stressors (84%) was significantly and positively associated with self-estimation of risk for depression as higher than average (ß = 0.07, p = 0.029); endorsement of 'abuse' as a causal attribution (ß = 0.10, p = 0.003); and endorsement of 'gene-environment interaction' as a causal mechanism (ß = 0.10, p = 0.002).LimitationsThe hypothetical nature of the genetic risk scenario may have weakened participants' sensitivity to the potential personal impact of such a genetic test result.ConclusionsPerceptions that modifiable environmental factors strongly contribute to overall risk of major depressive disorder appeared to drive willingness to engage in risk-modifying interventions in the hypothetical scenario of a genetic predisposition. Our results suggest that screening for genetic risk in consort with environmental risk factor assessment has potential community acceptability and clinical value as an early intervention and preventive tool for high risk groups.