ArticleBMJ open2017
Implementation of a consumer-focused eHealth intervention for people with moderate-to-high cardiovascular disease risk: protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Internet-Based Intervention for Cardiovascular Disease Management Integrated With Primary Care Electronic Health Records: Mixed Methods Evaluation of Implementation Fidelity and User Engagement.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Trial
- A realist evaluation approach to explaining the role of context in the impact of a complex eHealth intervention for improving prevention of cardiovascular disease.BMC health services research · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Understanding Whether and How a Digital Health Intervention Improves Transition Care for Emerging Adults Living With Type 1 Diabetes: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Realist Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the "Shifting Weight using Intermittent Fasting in night-shift workers" weight loss interventions: a mixed-methods protocol.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Sustainability of the Effects and Impacts of Using Digital Technology to Extend Maternal Health Services to Rural and Hard-to-Reach Populations: Experience From Southwest Nigeria.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022Article
- Electronic Health Interventions in the Case of Multiple Sclerosis: From Theory to Practice.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- EatSmart, a Web-Based and Mobile Healthy Eating Intervention for Disadvantaged People With Type 2 Diabetes: Protocol for a Pilot Mixed Methods Intervention Study.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- Investigating the Use of Mobile Health Interventions in Vulnerable Populations for Cardiovascular Disease Management: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- Article
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTechnology-mediated strategies have potential to engage patients in modifying unhealthy behaviour and improving medication adherence to reduce morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD). Furthermore, electronic tools offer a medium by which consumers can more actively navigate personal healthcare information. Understanding how, why and among whom such strategies have an effect can help determine the requirements for implementing them at a scale. This paper aims to detail a process evaluation that will (1) assess implementation fidelity of a multicomponent eHealth intervention; (2) determine its effective features; (3) explore contextual factors influencing and maintaining user engagement; and (4) describe barriers, facilitators, preferences and acceptability of such interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Mixed-methods sequential design to derive, examine, triangulate and report data from multiple sources. Quantitative data from 3 sources will help to inform both sampling and content framework for the qualitative data collection: (1) surveys of patients and general practitioners (GPs); (2) software analytics; (3) programme delivery records. Qualitative data from interviews with patients and GPs, focus groups with patients and field notes taken by intervention delivery staff will be thematically analysed. Concurrent interview data collection and analysis will enable a thematic framework to evolve inductively and inform theory building, consistent with a realistic evaluation perspective. Eligible patients are those at moderate-to-high CVD risk who were randomised to the intervention arm of a randomised controlled trial of an eHealth intervention and are contactable at completion of the follow-up period; eligible GPs are the primary healthcare providers of these patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been received from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (AH&MRC) of New South Wales. Results will be disseminated via scientific forums including peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR 12613000715774.
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.