Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Primary care
How effective are ‘age’ tools at changing patient behaviour? A rapid review
  1. Bavidra Kulendrarajah,
  2. Adam Grey,
  3. David Nunan
  1. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Bavidra Kulendrarajah, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford University, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK; bavidra10{at}


Background A common form of risk communication is to relay the relative risk (%) of an adverse outcome based on surrogate markers associated with the outcome. A novel way of communicating risk is through ‘effective age’ of a person or specific organ. These tools can be used to change patient behaviour.

Objective To determine the effect of ‘effective age’ tools on patient behaviour as compared with more traditional methods of risk communication.

Study selection We performed a search of the PubMed database up to February 2019 for systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCT) that answered our question. Interventions were ‘effective age’ tools, comparators were usual care or alternative risk communication tools. Primary outcomes were behavioural change measures.

Findings We included 1 overview of systematic reviews (level 1 evidence), 2 systematic reviews (level 1 evidence) and 13 RCTs (level 2 evidence). Both systematic reviews concluded the evidence base was not conclusive enough to make specific recommendations.

Age tools assessed in the 13 RCTs were: ‘lung age’ (n=5), ‘heart age’ (n=3), ‘health age’ (n=2), ‘cardiovascular age’ (n=1), ‘body age’ (n=1) and ‘net present value’ (n=1). 7/13 (54%) RCTs demonstrated a clinical effect on behaviour change favouring the ‘age’ tool; 2/13 (15%) demonstrated a null effect; 4/13 (31%) favoured control.

Conclusions Our findings indicate that systematic review evidence needs updating. The evidence from RCTs on the effect of using age metrics on patient behaviour is poor. There is a need for high-quality trials to decrease uncertainty in the available evidence.

View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Twitter @dnunan79

  • Contributors BK and AG both contributed equally to data collection and write-up of this manuscript. DN supervised the data collection.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.