ArticleHealth promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals2023
Biological age calculators to motivate lifestyle change: Environmental scan of online tools and evaluation of behaviour change techniques.
Article in Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Visualization With Petal-X and Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Support Person-Centered Care and Lifestyle Change in Cardiovascular Prevention: Qualitative Descriptive Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective"Biological age" calculators are widely used as a way of communicating health risk. This study evaluated the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) within such tools, underlying algorithm differences and suitability for people with varying health literacy.
methodsTwo authors entered terms into Google (eg, biological/heart age) and recorded the first 50 results. A standard patient profile was entered into eligible biological age calculators. Evaluation was based on Michie et al's BCT taxonomy and a readability calculator.
resultsFrom 4000 search results, 20 calculators were identified: 11 for cardiovascular age, 7 for general biological age and 2 for fitness age. The calculators gave variable results for the same 65-year-old profile: biological age ranged from younger to older (57-87 years), while heart age was always older (69-85+ years). Only 11/20 (55%) provided a reference explaining the underlying algorithm. The average reading level was Grade 10 (range 8.7-12.4; SD 1.44). The most common BCTs were salience of consequences, information about health consequences and credible source.
conclusionsBiological age tools have highly variable results, BCTs and readability. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Developers are advised to use validated models, explain the result at the average Grade 8 reading level, and incorporate a clear call to action using evidence-based behaviour change techniques.
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.