Olga C Damman1, Suzanne I Vonk2, Maaike J van den Haak3, Charlotte M J van Hooijdonk4, Danielle R M Timmermans5. 1. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: o.damman@vumc.nl. 2. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.vonk@vumc.nl. 3. Department of Language, Literature and Communication, VU University, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.j.vanden.haak@vu.nl. 4. Department of Language, Literature and Communication, VU University, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.m.j.van.hooijdonk@vu.nl. 5. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands; National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: drm.timmermans@vumc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study how comprehension of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is influenced by: (1) infographics about qualitative risk information, with/without risk numbers; (2) which qualitative risk dimension is emphasized; (3) heart age vs. traditional risk format. METHODS: For aim 1, a 2 (infographics versus text) x 2 (risk number versus no risk number) between-subjects design was used. For aim 2, three pieces of information were tested within-subjects. Aim 3 used a simple comparison group. Participants (45-65 yrs old) were recruited through an online access panel; low educated people were oversampled. They received hypothetical risk information (20%/61yrs). Primary outcomes: recall, risk appraisals, subjective/objective risk comprehension. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: behavioral intentions, information evaluations. RESULTS: Infographics of qualitative risk dimensions negatively affected recall, subjective risk comprehension and information evaluations. No effect of type of risk dimension was found on risk perception. Heart age influenced recall, comprehension, evaluations and affective risk appraisals. CONCLUSION: Infographics of hypothetical CVD risk information had detrimental effects on measures related to risk perception/comprehension, but effects were mainly seen in undereducated participants. Heart age influenced perceptions/comprehension of hypothetical risk in a way that seemed to support understanding. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Heart age seems a fruitful risk communication approach in disease risk calculators.
OBJECTIVE: To study how comprehension of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is influenced by: (1) infographics about qualitative risk information, with/without risk numbers; (2) which qualitative risk dimension is emphasized; (3) heart age vs. traditional risk format. METHODS: For aim 1, a 2 (infographics versus text) x 2 (risk number versus no risk number) between-subjects design was used. For aim 2, three pieces of information were tested within-subjects. Aim 3 used a simple comparison group. Participants (45-65 yrs old) were recruited through an online access panel; low educated people were oversampled. They received hypothetical risk information (20%/61yrs). Primary outcomes: recall, risk appraisals, subjective/objective risk comprehension. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: behavioral intentions, information evaluations. RESULTS: Infographics of qualitative risk dimensions negatively affected recall, subjective risk comprehension and information evaluations. No effect of type of risk dimension was found on risk perception. Heart age influenced recall, comprehension, evaluations and affective risk appraisals. CONCLUSION: Infographics of hypothetical CVD risk information had detrimental effects on measures related to risk perception/comprehension, but effects were mainly seen in undereducated participants. Heart age influenced perceptions/comprehension of hypothetical risk in a way that seemed to support understanding. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Heart age seems a fruitful risk communication approach in disease risk calculators.
Authors: Patricia Moreno-Peral; Sonia Conejo-Cerón; Anna Fernández; Carlos Martín-Pérez; Carmen Fernández-Alonso; Antonina Rodríguez-Bayón; María Isabel Ballesta-Rodríguez; José María Aiarzagüena; Carmen Montón-Franco; Michael King; Irwin Nazareth; Juan Ángel Bellón Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Carissa Bonner; Carys Batcup; Samuel Cornell; Michael Anthony Fajardo; Anna L Hawkes; Lyndal Trevena; Jenny Doust Journal: JMIR Cardio Date: 2021-11-05
Authors: Stacey D Schulberg; Amy V Ferry; Kai Jin; Lucy Marshall; Lis Neubeck; Fiona E Strachan; Nicholas L Mills Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2022-06-19 Impact factor: 3.057