Bonner Carissa, Fajardo Michael Anthony, Hui Samuel, Stubbs Renee, Trevena Lyndal
School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Ask, Share, Know: Rapid Evidence for General Practice Decisions Centre for Research Excellence, Discipline of General Practice, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Feb 1;20(2):e29. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8538.
Online health information is particularly important for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, where lifestyle changes are recommended until risk becomes high enough to warrant pharmacological intervention. Online information is abundant, but the quality is often poor and many people do not have adequate health literacy to access, understand, and use it effectively.
This project aimed to review and evaluate the suitability of online CVD risk calculators for use by low health literate consumers in terms of clinical validity, understandability, and actionability.
This systematic review of public websites from August to November 2016 used evaluation of clinical validity based on a high-risk patient profile and assessment of understandability and actionability using Patient Education Material Evaluation Tool for Print Materials.
A total of 67 unique webpages and 73 unique CVD risk calculators were identified. The same high-risk patient profile produced widely variable CVD risk estimates, ranging from as little as 3% to as high as a 43% risk of a CVD event over the next 10 years. One-quarter (25%) of risk calculators did not specify what model these estimates were based on. The most common clinical model was Framingham (44%), and most calculators (77%) provided a 10-year CVD risk estimate. The calculators scored moderately on understandability (mean score 64%) and poorly on actionability (mean score 19%). The absolute percentage risk was stated in most (but not all) calculators (79%), and only 18% included graphical formats consistent with recommended risk communication guidelines.
There is a plethora of online CVD risk calculators available, but they are not readily understandable and their actionability is poor. Entering the same clinical information produces widely varying results with little explanation. Developers need to address actionability as well as clinical validity and understandability to improve usefulness to consumers with low health literacy.
在线健康信息对于心血管疾病(CVD)预防尤为重要,在这种情况下,建议改变生活方式,直到风险高到足以进行药物干预。在线信息丰富,但质量往往较差,而且许多人没有足够的健康素养来有效获取、理解和使用这些信息。
本项目旨在从临床有效性、可理解性和可操作性方面,审查和评估在线CVD风险计算器对健康素养较低的消费者的适用性。
2016年8月至11月对公共网站进行的这项系统评价,基于高风险患者概况对临床有效性进行评估,并使用印刷材料患者教育材料评估工具对可理解性和可操作性进行评估。
共识别出67个独特的网页和73个独特的CVD风险计算器。相同的高风险患者概况得出的CVD风险估计值差异很大,未来10年发生CVD事件的风险低至3%,高至43%。四分之一(25%)的风险计算器未指明这些估计值所基于的模型。最常见的临床模型是弗明汉模型(44%),大多数计算器(77%)提供10年CVD风险估计值。这些计算器在可理解性方面得分中等(平均得分64%),在可操作性方面得分较低(平均得分19%)。大多数(但不是全部)计算器(79%)列出了绝对风险百分比,只有18%包含符合推荐风险沟通指南的图形格式。
有大量的在线CVD风险计算器可供使用,但它们不易理解,可操作性也很差。输入相同的临床信息会产生差异很大的结果,且几乎没有解释。开发者需要在解决可操作性的同时,兼顾临床有效性和可理解性以提高对健康素养较低的消费者的实用性。