Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T02:21:30.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public knowledge and opinion of epigenetics and epigenetic concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2021

Fiona Lynch Open the ORCID record for Fiona Lynch [Opens in a new window] ,
Sharon Lewis ,
Ivan Macciocca  and
Jeffrey M. Craig
Fiona Lynch
Affiliation:
Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Australia Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
Sharon Lewis
Affiliation:
Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Australia Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
Ivan Macciocca
Affiliation:
Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Australia Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Parkville, Australia
Jeffrey M. Craig*
Affiliation:
Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Australia Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia IMPACT – the Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Jeffrey M. Craig, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital; Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The field of epigenetics is currently one of the most rapidly expanding in biology and has resulted in increasing public interest in its applications to human health. Epigenetics provides a promising avenue for both targeted individual intervention and public health messaging. However, to develop effective strategies for engagement, it is important to understand the public’s understanding of the relevant concepts. While there has been some research exploring the public’s understanding of genetic and environmental susceptibility to disease, limited research exists on public opinion and understanding of epigenetics and epigenetic concepts. Using an online questionnaire, this study investigated the Australian public’s understanding, views, and opinions of epigenetics and related concepts, including the concepts of the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) and the first 1000 days. Over 600 questionnaires were completed, with 391 included in the analysis. The survey included questions on knowledge of epigenetics and perceptions of epigenetic concepts for self and for children. Data were analyzed using predominately descriptive statistics, with free-text responses scored based on concordance with predetermined definitions. While participants’ recognition of epigenetic terms and phrases was high, their understanding was limited. The DOHaD theory was more accurately understood than the first 1000 days or epigenetics itself. Female participants without children were more likely to recognize the term epigenetics, while age also had an impact. This research provides a solid foundation for further detailed investigation of these themes, all of which will be important data to help inform future public health messages regarding epigenetic concepts.

Keywords

Epigeneticsdevelopmental origins of health and diseasepublic opinionearly life originsfirst 1000 days
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , August 2022 , pp. 431 - 440
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Weber, WW. The promise of epigenetics in personalized medicine. Mol Interv. 2010; 10(6), 363–370.10.1124/mi.10.6.5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavalli, G, Heard, E. Advances in epigenetics link genetics to the environment and disease. Cah Rev The. 2019; 571(7766), 489–499.Google Scholar
Dubois, M, Louvel, S, Le Goff, A, Guaspare, C, Allard, P. Epigenetics in the public sphere: interdisciplinary perspectives. Environ Epigenet. 2019; 5(4), 5.10.1093/eep/dvz019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyke, SOM, Ennis, CA, Joly, Y, et al. Communicating science: epigenetics in the spotlight. Environ Epigenet. 2020; 6(1), 7539 [Epub ahead of print].10.1093/eep/dvaa015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, SS, Daniels, CR, Gillman, MW, et al. Society: Don't blame the mothers. Cah Rev The. 2014; 512(7513), 131–132.Google ScholarPubMed
Holliday, R. Epigenetics: a historical overview. Ciba F Symp. 2006; 1(2), 76–80.Google ScholarPubMed
Sharp, GC, Relton, CL. Epigenetics and noncommunicable diseases. Epigenomics-UK. 2017; 9(6), 789–791.10.2217/epi-2017-0045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Condit, CM. Public understandings of genetics and health. Clin Genet. 2010; 77(1), 1–9.10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01316.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, J, Gwinn, M, Clyne, M, Khoury, MJ. Public knowledge regarding the role of genetic susceptibility to environmentally induced health conditions. Community Genet. 2003; 6(1), 22–28.Google ScholarPubMed
Tercyak, KP, Hensley Alford, S, Emmons, KM, et al. Parents' attitudes toward pediatric genetic testing for common disease risk. Pediatrics. 2011; 127(5), e1288–e95.10.1542/peds.2010-0938CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bay, JL, Mora, H, Sloboda, D, et al. Adolescent understanding of DOHaD concepts: a school-based intervention to support knowledge translation and behaviour change. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2012; 3(6), 469–482.10.1017/S2040174412000505CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molster, C, Charles, T, Samanek, A, O'Leary, P. Australian study on public knowledge of human genetics and health. Public Health Genom. 2009; 12(2), 84–91.10.1159/000164684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, KK, Charles, JN, Khandpur, N, Nelson, TJ. Fathers’ perceived reasons for their underrepresentation in child health research and strategies to increase their involvement. Matern Child Health J. 2017; 21(2), 267–274.10.1007/s10995-016-2157-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, PA, Taylor, R, Thielke, R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42(2), 377–381.10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, PA, Taylor, R, Minor, BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019; 95, 103208.10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software, 2017, 15 edn. StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX.Google Scholar
Barker, D. The developmental origins of adult disease. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004; 23(sup6), 588S–95S.10.1080/07315724.2004.10719428CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolinoy, DC, Weidman, JR, Jirtle, RL. Epigenetic gene regulation: linking early developmental environment to adult disease. Reprod Toxicol. 2007; 23(3), 297–307.10.1016/j.reprotox.2006.08.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gluckman, PD, Hanson, MA, Beedle, AS. Non-genomic transgenerational inheritance of disease risk. BioEssays. 2007; 29, 145–154.10.1002/bies.20522CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henneman, L, Vermeulen, E, van El, CG, et al. Public attitudes towards genetic testing revisited: comparing opinions between 2002 and 2010. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013; 21(8), 793–799.10.1038/ejhg.2012.271CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willoughby, EA, Love, AC, McGue, M, et al. Free will determinism, and intuitive judgments about the heritability of behavior. Behav Genet. 2019; 49(2), 136–153.10.1007/s10519-018-9931-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothstein, MA, Cai, Y, Marchant, GE. The ghost in our genes: legal and ethical implications of epigenetics. Health Matrix. 2009; 19, 1–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Hessler, K. Epigenetic inheritance and the moral responsibilities of mothers. Virtual Mentor. 2013; 15, 767–770.Google ScholarPubMed
Sharp, GC, Lawlor, DA, Richardson, SS. It’s the mother!: how assumptions about the causal primacy of maternal effects influence research on the developmental origins of health and disease. Soc Sci Med. 2018; 213(1), 20–27.10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.035CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharp, GC, Schellhas, L, Richardson, SS, Lawlor, DA. Time to cut the cord: recognizing and addressing the imbalance of DOHaD research towards the study of maternal pregnancy exposures. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2019; 10(5), 509–512.10.1017/S2040174419000072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ABS. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Government, 2020 [Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/].Google Scholar
Sue, VM, Ritter, LA. Conducting Online Surveys, 2007. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oakes, California.10.4135/9781412983754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lynch et al. supplementary material

Lynch et al. supplementary material 1

Download Lynch et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.4 MB
Supplementary material: PDF

Lynch et al. supplementary material

Lynch et al. supplementary material 2

Download Lynch et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 533.4 KB