ArticleBMJ open2016
Online self-assessment of cardiovascular risk using the Joint British Societies (JBS3)-derived heart age tool: a descriptive study.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of the AI-HeartAge Model in Framingham and UK Biobank.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2026Article
- Age-stratified comparison of heart age and predicted cardiovascular risk in 370 000 primary care patients.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2025Article
- Guideline-Based Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Delivered by an mHealth App: Development Study.JMIR cardio · 2023Article
- The Impact and Perception of England's Web-Based Heart Age Test of Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR cardio · 2023Article
- Biological age calculators to motivate lifestyle change: Environmental scan of online tools and evaluation of behaviour change techniques.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2023Article
- The Development and Evaluation of "Life Age"-a Primary Prevention and Population-Focused Risk Communication Tool: Feasibility Study With a Single-Arm Repeated Measures Design.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Predicted heart age profile across 41 countries: A cross-sectional study of nationally representative surveys in six world regions.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
- Article
- ESC CVD Prevention Guidelines 2021: improvements, controversies, and opportunities.Cardiovascular research · 2022Article
- Interventions Using Heart Age for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Communication: Systematic Review of Psychological, Behavioral, and Clinical Effects.JMIR cardio · 2021Review
- Patient Risk Interpretation of Symptoms Model (PRISM): How Patients Assess Cardiac Risk.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Self-Assessment of Health among the Citizens of Serbia in the Transition Period.Iranian journal of public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Experiences of a National Web-Based Heart Age Calculator for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: User Characteristics, Heart Age Results, and Behavior Change Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Estimation of Cardiovascular Risk from Self-Reported Knowledge of Risk Factors: Insights from the Minnesota Heart Survey.Clinical epidemiology · 2020Article
- Is the NHS 'Heart Age Test' too much medicine?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Should heart age calculators be used alongside absolute cardiovascular disease risk assessment?BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Article
- Validity of a method for the self-screening of cardiovascular risk.Clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
- Heart Age, Cardiovascular Disease Risk, and Disparities by Sex and Race/Ethnicity Among New York City Adults.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveA modified version of the Joint British Societies (JBS3) 'heart age' tool was introduced online to broaden access to personalised risk assessment to the general population and encourage participation in the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme. This study reports on its early uptake and the profiles of those who used the self-assessment tool to determine their own cardiovascular risk.
designObservational, retrospective analysis of online tool use.
settingBetween February and July 2015, user data collected from the NHS Choices website, where the tool was hosted, were analysed anonymously using standard analytic packages.
resultsThe online tool landing page was viewed 1.4 million times in the first 5 months, with increased activity following limited media coverage. Of the 575 782 users completing the data journey with a valid 'heart age' result, their demographic and risk factor profiles broadly resembled the population of England, although both younger users and males (60%) were over-represented. Almost 50% and 79% did not know or enter their blood pressure or total cholesterol values, respectively. Estimated heart age was higher than chronological age for 79% of all users, and also for 69% of younger users under 40 years who are at low 10-year risk and not invited for NHS Health Checks.
conclusionsThese data suggest a high level of public interest in self-assessment of cardiovascular risk when an easily understood metric is used, although a large number of users lack awareness of their own risk factors. The heart age tool was accessed by a group not easily reached by conventional approaches yet is at high cardiovascular risk and would benefit most from early and sustained risk reduction. These are both important opportunities for interventions to educate and empower the public to manage better their cardiovascular risk and promote population-level prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.