Is the "heart age" concept helpful or harmful compared to absolute cardiovascular disease risk? An experimental study

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)967-978
Number of pages12
JournalMedical Decision Making
Volume35
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2015

Fingerprint

Cardiovascular Diseases
Life Style
Guidelines
Referral and Consultation

Cite this

Bonner, Carissa ; Jansen, Jesse ; Newell, Ben R. ; Irwig, Les ; Teixeira-Pinto, Armando ; Glasziou, Paul ; Doust, Jenny ; McKinn, Shannon ; McCaffery, Kirsten. / Is the "heart age" concept helpful or harmful compared to absolute cardiovascular disease risk? An experimental study. In: Medical Decision Making. 2015 ; Vol. 35, No. 8. pp. 967-978.
@article{9cd2bf2b21cc4f648281a38cd78f7d6d,
title = "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.",
author = "Carissa Bonner and Jesse Jansen and Newell, {Ben R.} and Les Irwig and Armando Teixeira-Pinto and Paul Glasziou and Jenny Doust and Shannon McKinn and Kirsten McCaffery",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0272989X15597224",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "967--978",
journal = "Medical Decision Making",
issn = "0272-989X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "8",

}

Is the "heart age" concept helpful or harmful compared to absolute cardiovascular disease risk? An experimental study. / Bonner, Carissa; Jansen, Jesse; Newell, Ben R.; Irwig, Les; Teixeira-Pinto, Armando; Glasziou, Paul; Doust, Jenny; McKinn, Shannon; McCaffery, Kirsten.

In: Medical Decision Making, Vol. 35, No. 8, 01.11.2015, p. 967-978.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is the "heart age" concept helpful or harmful compared to absolute cardiovascular disease risk? An experimental study

AU - Bonner, Carissa

AU - Jansen, Jesse

AU - Newell, Ben R.

AU - Irwig, Les

AU - Teixeira-Pinto, Armando

AU - Glasziou, Paul

AU - Doust, Jenny

AU - McKinn, Shannon

AU - McCaffery, Kirsten

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942874495&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0272989X15597224

DO - 10.1177/0272989X15597224

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 967

EP - 978

JO - Medical Decision Making

JF - Medical Decision Making

SN - 0272-989X

IS - 8

ER -