Background Stroke events often result in long-term negative health outcomes. People who experience a first stroke event are 30%–40% more likely to experience a second stroke event within 5 years. An online secondary prevention programme for stroke survivors may help stroke survivors improve their health risk behaviours and lower their risk of a second stroke.
Objectives This paper describes the development and early iteration testing of the usability and acceptability of an online secondary prevention programme for stroke survivors (Prevent 2nd Stroke, P2S). P2S aims to address six modifiable health risk behaviours of stroke: blood pressure, physical activity, nutrition, depression and anxiety, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
Methods P2S was developed as an eight-module online secondary prevention programme for stroke survivors. Modelled on the DoTTI (Design and development, Testing early iterations, Testing for effectiveness, Integration and implementation) framework for the development of online programmes, the following stages were followed during programme development: (1) content development and design; and (2) testing early iteration. The programme was pilot-tested with 15 stroke survivors who assessed P2S on usability and acceptability.
Results In stage 1, experts provided input for the content development of P2S. In stage 2, 15 stroke survivors were recruited for usability testing of P2S. They reported high ratings of usability and acceptability of P2S. P2S was generally regarded as ‘easy to use’ and ‘relevant to stroke survivors’. Participants also largely agreed that it was appropriate to offer lifestyle advice to stroke survivors through the internet.
Conclusions The study found that an online secondary prevention programme was acceptable and easily usable by stroke survivors. The next step is to conduct a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of the programme regarding behaviour change and determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.
- assistive technology
- medical apps
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors AMJD was responsible for drafting the manuscript for publication and taking on the role of the corresponding author. AMJD, AG, SM, AT, ALB, NJS, MP, PM, CO, CC, RC, MW, OW and BB contributed to the design and conception of this development paper, offered critical revisions during the development of the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript.
Funding This work was supported by a project grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (1045840) and a partnership support from the Cancer Council NSW to BB. BB is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Career Development Fellowship and a Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle Gladys M Brawn Career Development Fellowship. AMJD is supported by a Research Training Program (RTP), University of Newcastle PhD Scholarship. The scholarship of AMJD is also supported by Emlyn and Jennie Thomas through the Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI). AG is supported by a post-doctoral fellowship from the Heart Foundation. ALB is supported by an Australian NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship and a Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle Gladys M Brawn Senior Research Fellowship. NJS is an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Career Development/National Heart Foundation (NHF) Cofunded Career Development/Future Leader Fellow. CC is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Research Fellowship, and a Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle Gladys M Brawn Senior Research Fellowship.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval Approval for this study was provided by the University of Newcastle Human Ethics Research Committee H-2013–0089.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.