ArticleJournal of prevention (2022)2022
The Acceptance and Use of the e-Health Instrument 'The Personal Health Check' in Four Dutch Municipalities: Lessons Learned.
Article in Journal of prevention (2022), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors influencing the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- A preventive integrated eHealth approach for individuals with a low socioeconomic position: protocol for a realist evaluation.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This pilot study assessed the acceptance and use of the e-Health instrument "the Personal Health Check" (PHC) among clients and professionals in primary care settings. By filling in the online PHC instrument, participants were provided insights into their health and lifestyle. When results revealed an increased health risk, participants were advised to undertake additional lab tests measuring blood pressure and haemaglobin levels. Based on the online questionnaire and optional lab tests, participants then received a report that included individually-tailored feedback from the e-Health application about personal health risks and suggestions for health interventions. The PHC was implemented in 2016 in four Dutch municipalities that determined which neighbourhood(s) the PHC targeted and how participants were invited. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology was used as a theoretical framework to address our research questions. Methods used to assess acceptance were: PHC instrument data, data from additional questionnaires completed by PHC participants, focus groups with PHC participants and professionals in primary care, and telephone interviews with non-responders to the invitation to participate in the online PHC. Of the 21,735 invited, 12% participated. Our results showed that participants and professionals in this pilot were predominantly positive about the PHC. Participants reported that they made an effort to apply the PHC lifestyle advice they received. Almost all had the knowledge and resources needed to use the PHC online instrument. Invitations from general practitioners almost doubled participation relative to invitations from the sponsoring municipalities. The overall low response rate, however, suggests that the PHC is unsuitable as a foundation on which to develop local public health policy.
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.