ArticlePLOS digital health2023
The Healthy Hearts Project: Development and evaluation of a website for cardiovascular risk assessment and visualisation and self-management through healthy lifestyle goal-setting.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Materially deprived communities in the UK have excess morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD) but are less likely to engage with formal care pathways. Community engagement and e-health may be more effective ways to promote risk-reducing lifestyle change. The "Healthy Hearts Project" website was designed for use by community health workers (CHWs) for cardiovascular risk assessment and lifestyle goal setting, or for independent use by community members. This paper describes the website's development and evaluation. The website was developed using interactive wire frame prototypes in a user-led approach. Qualitative evaluation of the completed website's usability and acceptability was conducted using the "Thinking Aloud" method in a purposive sample of 10 participants (one voluntary sector employee, three CHWs, two community members and four healthcare professionals). Thinking Aloud interview transcripts were thematically analysed using an inductive approach. A separate quantitative evaluation of usability and the effect of using the website on CVD knowledge and beliefs was conducted. A random sample of 134 participants, recruited using the online platform Prolific, completed the "Attitudes and Beliefs About Cardiovascular Disease" (ABCD) questionnaire before and after using the website, along with the System Usability Scale (SUS). Qualitative evaluation-Four key themes were identified: 1) Website functionality and design-participants generally found the website easy to use and understood the risk communication graphics and the feedback and goal-setting features,; 2) Inclusivity and representation-most participants considered the website inclusive of a range of users/cultures; 3) Language and comprehension-participants found the language used easy to understand but suggested reducing the amount of text; 4) Motivation and barriers to change-participants liked the personalized feedback and empowerment offered by goal-setting but commented on the need for self-motivation. Quantitative evaluation-The mean score across all domains of the ABCD questionnaire (from 2.99 to 3.11, p<0.001) and in the sub-domains relating to attitudes and beliefs around healthy eating and exercise increased after using the website. The mean(sd) score on the SUS was 77.5 (13.5). The website's usability was generally rated well by both quantitative and qualitative measures, and measures of CVD knowledge improved after use. A number of general recommendations for the design of eHealth behaviour change tools are made based on participants' suggestions to improve the website.
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.