Abstract
Objectives: There is increasing interest in 'biological age' formats to convey the risk of chronic disease. Fitness Age is a relatively new construct that may be useful for younger people who perceive cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk as less relevant. The current study tested whether Fitness Age increases behavioral intentions and psychosocial outcomes compared to formats commonly used for middle aged adults: Heart Age and percentage risk.
Methods: 180 young adults were randomized to 1 of 3 risk formats: Fitness Age, Heart Age, or lifetime percentage risk of CVD. To make the intervention more personally relevant, participants were assigned to receive a low or high risk result based on self-reported lifestyle factors. Validated measures were used for intentions, worry, perceived risk and credibility.
Results: Percentage risk and Heart Age resulted in greater lifestyle change intentions and more accurate numeric risk perception than Fitness Age. High risk results were perceived as less credible but more worrying.
Conclusions: Fitness Age may be detrimental for risk perception and behavior change for young adults. Percentage risk and Heart Age formats were equally effective. Practice Implications: Labels for biological age formats matter when developing risk communication tools, and Fitness Age would not be a recommended format. (c) 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.