Dataset Information

Clinical Validity, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculators: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: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. OBJECTIVE: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. METHODS: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. RESULTS: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. CONCLUSIONS: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.

SUBMITTER: Bonner C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5814602 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Validity, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculators: Systematic Review.

Bonner Carissa C Fajardo Michael Anthony MA Hui Samuel S Stubbs Renee R Trevena Lyndal L

Journal of medical Internet research 20180201 2

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>This project aimed to review and evaluate the suitability of online CVD risk calculators for ...[more]

PMID: 29391344

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The quality of life of people living with chronic conditions is highly dependent on self-management behaviors. Mobile health (mHealth) apps could facilitate self-management and thus help improve population health. To achieve their potential, apps need to target specific behaviors with appropriate techniques that support change and do so in a way that allows users to understand and act upon the content with which they interact. OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to identify apps targeted toward the self-management of chronic conditions and that are available in France. We aimed to examine what target behaviors and behavior change techniques (BCTs) they include, their level of understandability and actionability, and the associations between these characteristics. METHODS:We extracted data from the Google Play store on apps labelled as Top in the Medicine category. We also extracted data on apps that were found through 12 popular terms (ie, keywords) for the four most common chronic condition groups-cardiovascular diseases, cancers, respiratory diseases, and diabetes-along with apps identified through a literature search. We selected and downloaded native Android apps available in French for the self-management of any chronic condition in one of the four groups and extracted background characteristics (eg, stars and number of ratings), coded the presence of target behaviors and BCTs using the BCT taxonomy, and coded the understandability and actionability of apps using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for audiovisual materials (PEMAT-A/V). We performed descriptive statistics and bivariate statistical tests. RESULTS:A total of 44 distinct native apps were available for download in France and in French: 39 (89%) were found via the Google Play store and 5 (11%) were found via literature search. A total of 19 (43%) apps were for diabetes, 10 for cardiovascular diseases (23%), 8 for more than one condition in the four groups (18%), 6 for respiratory diseases (14%), and 1 for cancer (2%). The median number of target behaviors per app was 2 (range 0-7) and of BCTs per app was 3 (range 0-12). The most common BCT was self-monitoring of outcome(s) of behavior (31 apps), while the most common target behavior was tracking symptoms (30 apps). The median level of understandability was 42% and of actionability was 0%. Apps with more target behaviors and more BCTs were also more understandable (ρ=.31, P=.04 and ρ=.35, P=.02, respectively), but were not significantly more actionable (ρ=.24, P=.12 and ρ=.29, P=.054, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:These apps target few behaviors and include few BCTs, limiting their potential for behavior change. While content is moderately understandable, clear instructions on when and how to act are uncommon. Developers need to work closely with health professionals, users, and behavior change experts to improve content and format so apps can better support patients in coping with chronic conditions. Developers may use these criteria for assessing content and format to guide app development and evaluation of app performance. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018094012; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=94012.

Project description:Background:Statistically derived cardiovascular risk calculators (CVRC) that use conventional risk factors, generally underestimate or overestimate the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or stroke events primarily due to lack of integration of plaque burden. This study investigates the role of machine learning (ML)-based CVD/stroke risk calculators (CVRCML) and compares against statistically derived CVRC (CVRCStat) based on (I) conventional factors or (II) combined conventional with plaque burden (integrated factors). Methods:The proposed study is divided into 3 parts: (I) statistical calculator: initially, the 10-year CVD/stroke risk was computed using 13 types of CVRCStat (without and with plaque burden) and binary risk stratification of the patients was performed using the predefined thresholds and risk classes; (II) ML calculator: using the same risk factors (without and with plaque burden), as adopted in 13 different CVRCStat, the patients were again risk-stratified using CVRCML based on support vector machine (SVM) and finally; (III) both types of calculators were evaluated using AUC based on ROC analysis, which was computed using combination of predicted class and endpoint equivalent to CVD/stroke events. Results:An Institutional Review Board approved 202 patients (156 males and 46 females) of Japanese ethnicity were recruited for this study with a mean age of 69±11 years. The AUC for 13 different types of CVRCStat calculators were: AECRS2.0 (AUC 0.83, P<0.001), QRISK3 (AUC 0.72, P<0.001), WHO (AUC 0.70, P<0.001), ASCVD (AUC 0.67, P<0.001), FRScardio (AUC 0.67, P<0.01), FRSstroke (AUC 0.64, P<0.001), MSRC (AUC 0.63, P=0.03), UKPDS56 (AUC 0.63, P<0.001), NIPPON (AUC 0.63, P<0.001), PROCAM (AUC 0.59, P<0.001), RRS (AUC 0.57, P<0.001), UKPDS60 (AUC 0.53, P<0.001), and SCORE (AUC 0.45, P<0.001), while the AUC for the CVRCML with integrated risk factors (AUC 0.88, P<0.001), a 42% increase in performance. The overall risk-stratification accuracy for the CVRCML with integrated risk factors was 92.52% which was higher compared all the other CVRCStat. Conclusions:ML-based CVD/stroke risk calculator provided a higher predictive ability of 10-year CVD/stroke compared to the 13 different types of statistically derived risk calculators including integrated model AECRS 2.0.

Project description:To identify, critically appraise and summarise existing systematic reviews on the impact of global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adults.Systematic review of systematic reviews published between January 2005 and October 2016 in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE or CINAHL databases, and post hoc analysis of primary trials.Systematic reviews of interventions involving global cardiovascular risk assessment relative to no formal risk assessment in adults with no history of CVD. The primary outcomes of interest were CVD-related morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol and smoking.We identified six systematic reviews of variable but generally of low quality (mean Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 4.2/11, range 0/11 to 7/11). No studies identified by the systematic reviews reported CVD-related morbidity or mortality or all-cause mortality. Meta-analysis of reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed small reductions in SBP (mean difference (MD) -2.22?mm?Hg (95% CI -3.49 to -0.95); I2=66%; n=9; GRADE: very low), total cholesterol (MD -0.11?mmol/L (95% CI -0.20 to -0.02); I2=72%; n=5; GRADE: very low), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -0.15?mmol/L (95% CI -0.26 to -0.05), I2=47%; n=4; GRADE: very low) and smoking cessation (RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.43); I2=17%; n=7; GRADE: low). The median follow-up time of reported RCTs was 12?months (range 2-36?months).The quality of existing systematic reviews was generally poor and there is currently no evidence reported in these reviews that the prospective use of global cardiovascular risk assessment translates to reductions in CVD morbidity or mortality. There are reductions in SBP, cholesterol and smoking but they may not be clinically significant given their small effect size and short duration. Resources need to be directed to conduct high-quality systematic reviews focusing on hard patient outcomes, and likely further primary RCTs.CRD42015019821.

Dataset Information

Clinical Validity, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculators: Systematic Review.

Publications

Clinical Validity, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculators: Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets