Although percentage risk formats are commonly used to convey cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, people find it difficult to understand these representations.
Aims
To compare the impact of providing a CVD risk message in either a traditional format (% risk) or using an analogy of risk (Heart-Age) on participants' risk perceptions and intention to make lifestyle changes.
Methods
Four hundred and thirteen men and women were randomly allocated to one of two conditions; CVD risk as a percentage or as a Heart-Age score (a cardiovascular risk adjusted age).
Results
There was a graded relationship between perceived and actual CVD risk only in those participants receiving a Heart-Age message (P<0.05). Heart-Age was more emotionally impactful in younger individuals at higher actual CVD risk (P<0.01). Self-reported emotional reactions further mediated the relationship between risk perception and intention to make lifestyle changes.
Conclusion
This study found that the Heart-Age message significantly differed from percentage CVD risk score in risk perceptions and was more emotionally impactful in those participants at higher actual CVD risk levels.
PastorPNMakueDMReubenCXiaH.Chart-book on trends in the health of Americans. Maryland: National Center for Health Statistic; 2002.
2.
Steenkiste vanBWeijden van derTStoffersHEJHKesterADMTimmermansDRMGrolR.Improving cardiovascular risk management: a randomised, controlled trial on the effect of a decision support tool for patients and physicians. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2007; 14:44–50.
3.
GigerenzerGHoffrageU.How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction-frequency formats. Psychol Rev1995; 102:684–704.
4.
HoffrageUGigerenzerG.Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med1998; 73:538–540.
5.
SlovicPMonahanJMacGregorDG.Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law Hum Behav2000; 24:271–296.
6.
GigerenzerGEdwardsA.Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ2003; 327:741–744.
7.
FairAKIMurrayPGThomasACobainMR.Using hypothetical data to assess the effect of numerical format and context on the perception of coronary heart disease risk. Am J Health Promotion2007; 22:1–7.
8.
MarteauTMLermanC.Genetic risk and behaviour change. BMJ2001; 322:1056–1059.
9.
TymstraTBielemanB.The psychosocial impact of mass screening for cardiovascular risk factors. Fam Pract1987; 4:287–290.
10.
Lloyd-JonesDMDyerARWangRDaviglusMLGreenlandP.Risk factor burden in middle age and lifetime risks for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular death (Chicago Heart Association Detection Project in Industry). Am J Cardiol2007; 99:535–540.
11.
BorgidaENisbettRE.The differential impact of abstract versus concrete information on decisions. J Appl Soc Psychol1977; 7:258–271.
12.
SlovicPPetersEFinucaneMIMacGregorDG.Affect, risk and decision making. Health Psychol2005; 24 (Suppl):S35–S40.
13.
TimmermansDMolewijkBStiggelboutAKievitJ.Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. Patient Edu Couns2004; 54:255–263.
14.
TimmermansDRMOckhuysen-VermeyCFHennemanL.Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Patient Educ Couns2008; 73:443–447.
15.
D'AgostinoRBRamachandranSPencinaVMJWolfPACobainMRMassaroJMKannelWB.General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the framingham heart study. Circulation2008; 117:743–753.
16.
EdwardsAElwynGGwynR.General practive registrar responses to the use of different risk communication tools in simulated consultations: a focus groups study. BMJ1999; 319:749–752.
17.
GoldmanREParkerDREatonCBGramlingRCoverRTAherDK.Patients' perceptions of cholesterol, cardiovascular disease risk, and risk communication strategies. Ann Fam Med2006; 4:205–212.
18.
GroverSALowensteynIJosephLKaouacheMMarchandSCoupalLBoudreauG.Patient knowledge of coronary risk profile improves the effectiveness of dyslipidemia therapy. Arch Intern Med2007; 167:2296–2303.
19.
ParkesGGreenalghTGriffinMDentR.Effect on smoking quit rate of telling patients their lung age: the Step2quit randomised controlled trial. BMJ2008; 336:598–600.
20.
BaronRMKennyDA.The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol1986; 51:1173–1182.
21.
LipkusIMSamsaGRimerBK.General performance on numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making2001; 21:37–44.
22.
WoloshinSSchwartzLMoncurMGabrielSTostesonA.Assessing values for health: numeracy matters. Med Decis Making2001; 21:382–390.
23.
LipkusIM.Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making2007; 27:696–713.
24.
CritesSLFabrigarLRPettyRE.Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: conceptual and methodological issues. Pers Soc Psychol Bull1994; 20:619–634.
25.
MansteadASRParkerD.Evaluating and extending the theory of planned behavior. Eur Rev Soc Psychol1995; 6:69–95.
26.
Van der PligtJZeelenbergMvan DijkWWde VriesNKRichardR.Affect, attitudes and decisions: let's be more specific. Eur Rev Soc Psychol1998; 8:33–66.
27.
ZannaMPRempelJK.Attitudes: a new look at an old concept. In: Bar-TalDKruglanskiAW, editors. The social psychology of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988. pp. 315–454.
28.
Denes-RajVEpsteinS.Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol1994; 66:819–829.
29.
SlovicPFinucaneMLPetersEMacGregorCG.Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Anal2004; 24:311–322.
30.
National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence Lipid Modification: Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and the Modifications of Blood Lipids for the Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. Full guidelines. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care; 2008.
31.
WoodDAWrayRPoulterNWilliamsBKirbyMPatelVJBS2: joint British guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice. Heart2005; 91 (Suppl V):V1–V52.
32.
Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA2001; 285:2486–2497.
