IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i8p967-978.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the “Heart Age†Concept Helpful or Harmful Compared to Absolute Cardiovascular Disease Risk? An Experimental Study

Author

Listed:
  • Carissa Bonner
  • Jesse Jansen
  • Ben R. Newell
  • Les Irwig
  • Armando Teixeira-Pinto
  • Paul Glasziou
  • Jenny Doust
  • Shannon McKinn
  • Kirsten McCaffery

Abstract

Background. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines are generally based on the absolute risk of a CVD event, but there is increasing interest in using ‘heart age’ to motivate lifestyle change when absolute risk is low. Previous studies have not compared heart age to 5-year absolute risk, or investigated the impact of younger heart age, graphical format, and numeracy. Objective. Compare heart age versus 5-year absolute risk on psychological and behavioral outcomes. Design. 2 (heart age, absolute risk) × 3 (text only, bar graph, line graph) experiment. Setting. Online. Participants. 570 Australians aged 45–64 years, not taking CVD-related medication. Intervention. CVD risk assessment. Measurements. Intention to change lifestyle, recall, risk perception, emotional response, perceived credibility, and lifestyle behaviors after 2 weeks. Results. Most participants had lifestyle risk factors (95%) but low 5-year absolute risk (94%). Heart age did not improve lifestyle intentions and behaviors compared to absolute risk, was more often interpreted as a higher-risk category by low-risk participants (47% vs 23%), and decreased perceived credibility and positive emotional response. Overall, correct recall dropped from 65% to 24% after 2 weeks, with heart age recalled better than absolute risk at 2 weeks (32% vs 16%). These results were found across younger and older heart age results, graphical format, and numeracy. Limitations. Communicating CVD risk in a consultation rather than online may produce different results. Conclusions. There is no evidence that heart age motivates lifestyle change more than 5-year absolute risk in individuals with low CVD risk. Five-year absolute risk may be a better way to explain CVD risk, because it is more credible, does not inflate risk perception, and is consistent with clinical guidelines that base lifestyle and medication recommendations on absolute risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Carissa Bonner & Jesse Jansen & Ben R. Newell & Les Irwig & Armando Teixeira-Pinto & Paul Glasziou & Jenny Doust & Shannon McKinn & Kirsten McCaffery, 2015. "Is the “Heart Age†Concept Helpful or Harmful Compared to Absolute Cardiovascular Disease Risk? An Experimental Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(8), pages 967-978, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:8:p:967-978
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15597224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15597224
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15597224?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milou Kievik & Ellen F.J. ter Huurne & Jan M. Gutteling, 2012. "The action suited to the word? Use of the framework of risk information seeking to understand risk-related behaviors," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 131-147, February.
    2. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    3. Jan M. Gutteling & Peter W. de Vries, 2017. "Determinants of Seeking and Avoiding Risk‐Related Information in Times of Crisis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 27-39, January.
    4. Jurriaan P. Oudhoff & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans, 2015. "The Effect of Different Graphical and Numerical Likelihood Formats on Perception of Likelihood and Choice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 487-500, May.
    5. Weina Liu & Chaonan Xu & Yajie Peng & Xinlong Xu, 2023. "Evolution of Tourism Risk Communication: A Bibliometric Analysis and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Communicating Risk to Tourists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-31, June.
    6. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    7. Warut Khern-am-nuai & Matthew J. Hashim & Alain Pinsonneault & Weining Yang & Ninghui Li, 2023. "Augmenting Password Strength Meter Design Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model: Evidence from Randomized Experiments," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 157-177, March.
    8. Kelly Klima & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & M. Granger Morgan & Iris Grossmann, 2012. "Public Perceptions of Hurricane Modification," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1194-1206, July.
    9. Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2022. "Combining nudges and boosts to increase precautionary saving: A large-scale field experiment," Papers WP722, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    10. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2013. "Helping Individuals to Understand Synergistic Risks: An Assessment of Message Contents Depicting Mechanistic and Probabilistic Concepts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 851-865, May.
    11. Michelle McDowell & Thorsten Pachur, 2020. "Availability, Affect, and Decisions to Seek Information about Cancer Risks," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(8), pages 941-945, November.
    12. Sophie Tourenq & George Boustras & Jan M. Gutteling, 2017. "Risk communication policy design: Cyprus compared to France and the Netherlands," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 533-550, April.
    13. Tanja Perko & Baldwin van Gorp & Catrinel Turcanu & Peter Thijssen & Benny Carle, 2013. "Communication in Nuclear Emergency Preparedness: A Closer Look at Information Reception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1987-2001, November.
    14. Aven, Terje, 2018. "Perspectives on the nexus between good risk communication and high scientific risk analysis quality," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 290-296.
    15. Yasmina Okan & Dafina Petrova & Samuel G. Smith & Vedran Lesic & Wändi Bruine de Bruin, 2019. "How Do Women Interpret the NHS Information Leaflet about Cervical Cancer Screening?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 738-754, October.
    16. Joseph Daron & Susanne Lorenz & Andrea Taylor & Suraje Dessai, 2021. "Communicating future climate projections of precipitation change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-20, May.
    17. Cristóbal De La Maza & Alex Davis & Cleotilde Gonzalez & Inês Azevedo, 2019. "Understanding Cumulative Risk Perception from Judgments and Choices: An Application to Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 488-504, February.
    18. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, May.
    19. Chris M. R. Smerecnik & Ilse Mesters & Loes T. E. Kessels & Robert A. C. Ruiter & Nanne K. De Vries & Hein De Vries, 2010. "Understanding the Positive Effects of Graphical Risk Information on Comprehension: Measuring Attention Directed to Written, Tabular, and Graphical Risk Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1387-1398, September.
    20. Hangjian Wu & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Marije Schaafsma, 2022. "Exploring Different Assumptions about Outcome-Related Risk Perceptions in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 531-572, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:8:p:967-978. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.