4.0 Article

Age Differences in Genetic Knowledge, Health Literacy and Causal Beliefs for Health Conditions

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH GENOMICS
Volume 14, Issue 4-5, Pages 307-316

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000316234

Keywords

Causal beliefs; Community-based sample; Genetic communication; Genetic knowledge; Health literacy

Funding

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: This study examined the levels of genetic knowledge, health literacy and beliefs about causation of health conditions among individuals in different age groups. Methods: Individuals (n = 971) recruited through 8 community health centers in Suffolk County, New York, completed a one-time survey. Results: Levels of genetic knowledge were lower among individuals in older age groups (26-35, p = 0.011; 36-49, p = 0.002; 50 years and older, p < 0.001) compared to those in the youngest age group (18-25). Participants in the oldest age group also had lower health literacy than those in the youngest group (p < 0.001). Those in the oldest group were more likely to endorse genetic (OR = 1.87, p = 0.008) and less likely to endorse behavioral factors like diet, exercise and smoking (OR = 0.55, p = 0.010) as causes of a person's body weight than those in the youngest group. Higher levels of genetic knowledge were associated with higher likelihood of behavioral attribution for body weight (OR = 1.25, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Providing additional information that compensates for their lower genetic knowledge may help individuals in older age groups benefit from rapidly emerging genetic health information more fully. Increasing the levels of genetic knowledge about common complex diseases may help motivate individuals to engage in health promoting behaviors to maintain healthy weight through increases in behavioral causal attributions. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available