The effects of infographics and several quantitative versus qualitative formats for cardiovascular disease risk, including heart age, on people’s risk understanding

2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (8) ◽  
pp. 1410-1418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga C. Damman ◽  
Suzanne I. Vonk ◽  
Maaike J. van den Haak ◽  
Charlotte M.J. van Hooijdonk ◽  
Danielle R.M. Timmermans
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease Risk ◽  
Heart Age

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

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 967-978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carissa Bonner ◽  
Jesse Jansen ◽  
Ben R. Newell ◽  
Les Irwig ◽  
Armando Teixeira-Pinto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Experimental Study ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease Risk ◽  
Heart Age

scholarly journals Should heart age calculators be used alongside absolute cardiovascular disease risk assessment?

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carissa Bonner ◽  
Katy Bell ◽  
Jesse Jansen ◽  
Paul Glasziou ◽  
Les Irwig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease Risk ◽  
Heart Age

scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative effects of cardiovascular disease risk communication using ‘heart age’ concepts

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carissa Bonner ◽  
Carys Batcup ◽  
Samuel Cornell ◽  
Michael Anthony Fajardo ◽  
Jenny Doust ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease Risk ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Quantitative Evidence ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Heart Age

AbstractIntroductionThe concept of ‘heart age’ is increasingly used for health promotion and alongside clinical guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. These tools have been used by millions of consumers around the world, and many health organisations promote them as a way of encouraging lifestyle change. However, heart age tools vary widely in terms of their underlying risk models and display formats, the effectiveness of these tools compared to other CVD risk communication formats remains unclear, and doctors have raised concerns over their use to expand testing of healthy low risk adults.Methods and analysisWe aim to systematically review both qualitative and quantitative evidence of the effects of heart age when presented to patients or consumers for the purpose of CVD risk communication. Four electronic databases will be search until April 2020 and reference lists from similar review articles will be searched. Studies will be considered eligible if they meet the following criteria: (1) published from the inception of the database to April 2020, in peer-reviewed journals, (2) used an adult population (over 18 years of age) or, if not explicit regarding age, are clear that participants were not children, (3) present the concept of ‘heart age’ to patients or consumers for the purpose of CVD risk communication, (4) report qualitative themes or quantitative outcomes relating to psychological and/or behavioural responses to heart age. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidance.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

scholarly journals Cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Checks using QRISK®2 and JBS3 risk calculators: the RICO qualitative and quantitative study

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (50) ◽  
pp. 1-124
Author(s):  
Christopher J Gidlow ◽  
Naomi J Ellis ◽  
Lisa Cowap ◽  
Victoria Riley ◽  
Diane Crone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease Risk ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Risk Calculator ◽  
Patient Understanding ◽  
Health Checks ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Risk Reducing ◽  
Heart Age

Background The NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease prevention programme. There is a lack of evidence on how health checks are conducted, how cardiovascular disease risk is communicated to foster risk-reducing intentions or behaviour, and the impact on communication of using different cardiovascular disease risk calculators. Objectives RIsk COmmunication in Health Check (RICO) study aimed to explore practitioner and patient understanding of cardiovascular disease risk, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and the response of the patients in health checks supported by either the QRISK®2 or the JBS3 lifetime risk calculator. Design This was a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation. Setting Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England, stratified on deprivation of the local area (bottom 50% vs. top 50%), and with matched pairs randomly allocated to use QRISK2 or JBS3 during health checks. Participants A total of 173 patients eligible for NHS Health Check and 15 practitioners. Interventions The health check was delivered using either the QRISK2 10-year risk calculator (usual practice) or the JBS3 lifetime risk calculator, with heart age, event-free survival age and risk score manipulation (intervention). Results Video-recorded health checks were analysed quantitatively (n = 173; JBS3, n = 100; QRISK2, n = 73) and qualitatively (n = 128; n = 64 per group), and video-stimulated recall interviews were undertaken with 40 patients and 15 practitioners, with 10 in-depth case studies. The duration of the health check varied (6.8–38 minutes), but most health checks were short (60% lasting < 20 minutes), with little cardiovascular disease risk discussion (average < 2 minutes). The use of JBS3 was associated with more cardiovascular disease risk discussion and fewer practitioner-dominated consultations than the use of QRISK2. Heart age and visual representations of risk, as used in JBS3, appeared to be better understood by patients than 10-year risk (QRISK2) and, as a result, the use of JBS3 was more likely to lead to discussion of risk factors and their management. Event-free survival age was not well understood by practitioners or patients. However, a lack of effective cardiovascular disease risk discussion in both groups increased the likelihood of a maladaptive coping response (i.e. no risk-reducing behaviour change). In both groups, practitioners often missed opportunities to check patient understanding and to tailor information on cardiovascular disease risk and its management during health checks, confirming apparent practitioner verbal dominance. Limitations The main limitations were under-recruitment in some general practices and the resulting imbalance between groups. Conclusions Communication of cardiovascular disease risk during health checks was brief, particularly when using QRISK2. Patient understanding of and responses to cardiovascular disease risk information were limited. Practitioners need to better engage patients in discussion of and action-planning for their cardiovascular disease risk to reduce misunderstandings. The use of heart age, visual representation of risk and risk score manipulation was generally seen to be a useful way of doing this. Future work could focus on more fundamental issues of practitioner training and time allocation within health check consultations. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10443908. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document