Nutrigenomics: Perceptions of South African Dietitians and General Practitioners.

Introduction: Although investigations into the emerging field of nutrigenomics are relatively limited and more research in this field is required, experts agree that there is potential for it to be incorporated into health care practice. If health care professionals can promote healthy dietary behavior based on nutrigenomic testing, it can assist in addressing the health consequences of poor diet and lightning the strain on the South African health care system.

Methods: Registered dietitians (RDs) and general practitioners (GPs) registered with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) who obtained their qualification in South Africa (SA) were eligible to participate in this cross-sectional study. Participants were identified using convenience and snowball sampling. A self-administered electronic survey using EvaSys Software® was completed by those that agreed to participate.

Results: Nearly all RDs (97.3%), but less than a third of GPs (30.4%), had heard of the term nutrigenomics. Approximately three-quarters of RDs (74.7%) and GPs (73.9%) had or would personally consider undergoing genetic testing. More than 40% (43.5%) of RDs ranked direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies as the most equipped, while 31.8% of GPs ranked RDs as the most equipped to provide patients with nutrigenomic services. Both RDs and GPs ranked similar reasons as "strongly agree" for why consumers were motivated to make use of nutrigenomic services, which included "motivated by a desire to prevent or manage disease" (56.7%), "prevent a disease based on family history" (65.9%), "control health outcomes based on family history" (54.9%), and "improve overall health-related quality of life" (48.6%). Cost concerns were reported as the greatest barrier to implementing nutrigenomic services (75.7%). Other barriers included confidentiality issues (47.8%) and moral concerns (37.3%). Greater individualization of diet prescription (66.5%), stronger foundations for nutrition recommendations (62.4%), and dietary prescriptions that would manage or prevent certain diseases more effectively (59.0%) were all perceived as benefits of including nutrigenomics in practice.

Conclusion: This study identified perceived consumer motivators and barriers that might affect the willingness to seek nutrigenomic services in SA. In addition, the need for more nutrigenomic training opportunities, including the planning of personalized diets based on genetic testing results and interpretation of results, was confirmed. However, both RDs and GPs felt that the emerging field of nutrigenomics needs further development before it can be applied effectively in routine private and public health care in SA.