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

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.

Keywords

cardiovascular disease prevention behaviour change lifestyle change risk assessment risk communication risk perception

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ferket

Colkesen

Visser

. Systematic review of guidelines on cardiovascular risk assessment: which recommendations should clinicians follow for a cardiovascular health check? Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(1):27–40.

Sposito

Ramires

JAF

Jukema

. Physicians’ attitudes and adherence to use of risk scores for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: cross-sectional survey in three world regions. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(5):1171–8.

Hobbs

FDR

Jukema

Da Silva

McCormack

Catapano

. Barriers to cardiovascular disease risk scoring and primary prevention in Europe. QJM. 2010;103(10):727–39.

Akl

Oxman

Herrin

. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(3):CD006776.

Visschers

VHM

Meertens

Passchier

WWF

de Vries

NNK

. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal. 2009;29(2):267–87.

Bonner

Jansen

McKinn

. General practitioners’ use of different cardiovascular risk assessment strategies: a qualitative study. Med J Aust. 2013;199(7):485–89.

Bonner

Jansen

McKinn

Irwig

Doust

Glasziou

McCaffery

. Communicating cardiovascular disease risk: an interview study of general practitioners’ use of absolute risk within tailored communication strategies. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:106.

Joint British Societies Board. Joint British Societies’ consensus recommendations for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (JBS3). Heart. 2014;100:1–67.

Wells

Kerr

Eadie

Wiltshire

Jackson

. “Your Heart Forecast”: a new approach for describing and communicating cardiovascular risk? Heart. 2010;96(9):708–13.

10.

Wells

Kerr

Broadbent

MacKenzie

Cole

McLachlan

. Does Your Heart Forecast help practitioner understanding and confidence with cardiovascular disease risk communication? J Prim Health Care. 2011;3(1):4–9.

11.

Goldman

Parker

Eaton

. Patients’ perceptions of cholesterol, cardiovascular disease risk, and risk communication strategies. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(3):205–12.

12.

Bonner

Jansen

Newell

. I don’t believe it, but I’d better do something about it: patient experiences of online heart age risk calculators. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(4).

13.

Soureti

Hurling

Murray

van Mechelen

Cobain

. Evaluation of a cardiovascular disease risk assessment tool for the promotion of healthier lifestyles. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2010;17(5):519–23.

14.

Waldron

van der Weijden

Ludt

Gallacher

Elwyn

. What are effective strategies to communicate cardiovascular risk information to patients? A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(2):169–81.

15.

Grover

Lowensteyn

Joseph

. Patient knowledge of coronary risk profile improves the effectiveness of dyslipidemia therapy: the CHECK-UP study: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(21):2296–303.

16.

Parkes

Greenhalgh

Griffin

Dent

. Effect on smoking quit rate of telling patients their lung age: the Step2quit randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):598–600.

17.

Lipkus

. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risk: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:696–713.

18.

Trevena

Zikmund-Fisher

Edwards

. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Informatics Decis Making. 2013;13(Suppl. 2):S7.

19.

Garcia-Retamero

Galesic

. Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people’s understanding of risks. Social Science & Medicine. 2010;70:1019–25.

20.

Garcia-Retamero

Galesic

Gigerenzer

. Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Med Decis Making. 2010;30:672–684.

21.

National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance (NVDPA). Guidelines for the Management of Absolute Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Canberra: National Stroke Foundation; 2012.

22.

Dillard

Ferrer

Ubel

Fagerlin

. Risk perception measures’ associations with behavior intentions, affect, and cognition following colon cancer screening messages. Health Psychol. 2012;31:106–13.

23.

Cameron

. Illness risk representations and motivations to engage in protective behavior: the case of skin cancer risk. Psychol Health. 2008;23:91–112.

24.

Lee

Cameron

Wunsche

Stevens

. A randomized trial of computer-based communications using imagery and text information to alter representations of heart disease risk and motivate protective behaviour. Brit J Health Psychol. 2011;16:72–91.

25.

Anderson

Odell

Wilson

Kannel

. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J. 1991;121:293–98.

26.

Dunstan

Zimmet

Welborn

. The Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab): methods and response rates. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2002;57:119–29.

27.

Fagerlin

Zikmund-Fisher

Ubel

Jankovic

Derry

Smith

. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:672–80.

28.

Armitage

Conner

. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Brit J Social Psychol. 2001;40:471–99.

29.

Francis

Eccles

Johnston

. Constructing Questionnaires Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Manual for Health Services Researchers. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne; 2004.

30.

Catellier

JRA

Yang

. Trust and affect: how do they impact risk information seeking in a health context? J Risk Res. 2012;15(8):897–911.

31.

Scherer

Ubel

McClure

. Belief in numbers: when and why women disbelieve tailored breast cancer risk statistics. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;92(2):253–59.

32.

Kievik

ter Huurne

EFJ

Gutteling

. The action suited to the word? Use of the framework of risk information seeking to understand risk-related behaviors. J Risk Res. 2012;15:131–47.

33.

Smith

Marshall

Huang

. Screening for physical activity in family practice: evaluation of two brief assessment tools. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29:256–64.

34.

O’Hara

Phongsavan

Venugopal

. Effectiveness of Australia’s Get Healthy Information and Coaching Service: translational research with population wide impact. Prev Med. 2012;55(4):292–98.

35.

Witteman

Fuhrel-Forbis

Wijeysundera

. Animated randomness, avatars, movement, and personalization in risk graphics. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3):294–313 (Multimedia Appendix 3).

36.

Bonner

Newell

. How to make a risk seem riskier: the ratio bias versus construal level theory. Judgm Decis Making. 2008;3:411–16.

37.

Lopez-Gonzalez

Aguilo

Frontera

. Effectiveness of the Heart Age tool for improving modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in a Southern European population: a randomized trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol. In press.

38.

Harle

Downs

Padman

. A clustering approach to segmenting users of internet-based risk calculators. Methods Inf Med. 2011;50(3):244–52.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.36 MB

0.08 MB