Comparing comprehension and perception for alternative speed‐of‐ageing and standard hazard ratio formats

Abstract

A hazard ratio presents one benefit of exercise as reducing annual mortality risk by 19%. Alternatively, speed-of-ageing metaphors present this as adding 2.5 years to one's life expectancyequating to 1 extra hour each day-or taking 2.5 years off one's "effective age." Few studies compare these (increasingly popular) metaphors. Study 1 compared perception and comprehension between speed-of-ageing metaphors and hazard ratios. Study 2 compared the hazard ratio with 3 versions of effective age (change-in-age, personal, and age-matched age). Results revealed a disadvantage to the change-in-age format (behaviour X makes someone Y years older), with unhealthy behaviours perceived as less risky and healthy behaviours as less beneficial, information judged less likely to affect behaviour and harder to understand. The personal format (behaviour makes your effective age X) shows no such disadvantage and is objectively better understood than are hazard ratios. These results support the use of personalised effective ages in health and risk communication.

Mortality of type 2 diabetes in Germany: additional insights from Gompertz models

“…When referring to the RLE, then for the person having diabetes, this is expected to take, say, X years off the length of their life. When referring to the diabetes age, then for the person having diabetes, this gives them the annual chance of death of someone who is X years older [ 17 ].…”

“…As such, it is difficult, if not impossible, to derive any relations between the diabetes age and the RLE here which is of course another argument for using the diabetes age per se, and in addition to the reduction in life expectancy. However, and as shown by Heard et al [ 17 ], there are also challenges in the interpretation of diabetes age when compared to the RLE or a less-distant-in-time measure like the hours of life expectancy lost each day. Following Heard et al [ 17 ] it is advantageous to communicate diabetes age not in a change-in-age format (“Having diabetes makes you X years older”), but in a personal format (“Having diabetes and being Y years old, increases your diabetes age to Y + X years”).…”

An Intuitive Risk Communication Tool to Enhance Patient–Provider Partnership in Diabetes Consultation

“…Communicating reductions in life expectancy associated with lack of diabetes control has the advantage of capturing a more global impact of the detrimental effects on health (ie, conveying the “big picture”). We chose to use a shorter (monthly) time frame to communicate such losses of lifetime, because positive effects on risk understanding 19 and perceptions 10 , 20 have been reported. For example, a 0.5% (14 mg/dL) increase in HbA1c may translate into a 3-day loss of lifetime each month, rather than a 2-year loss at the end of life.…”

Interplay between benefit appeal and valence framing in reducing smoking behavior: Evidence from a field experience

“…Increasing the concreteness of long‐term consequences has been shown to drive behavior change in other domains such as green product choice (Hardisty et al, 2020) and grocery shopping (Chetty et al, 2009). Moreover, communicating the health behaviors' consequences in the more concrete manner of a personal speed‐of‐ageing metaphor (“behaviour X adds/subtracts Y years to your life expectancy”) has been found to be better understood than hazard ratios (“behaviour X increases / reduces your annual mortality risk by Y%”) (Heard et al, 2018). There is therefore reason to believe that interventions that make future outcomes more concrete could be effective in promoting smoking cessation.…”