You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 1
  • Implementation of a consumer-focused eHealth intervention for people with moderate-to-high cardiovascular disease risk: protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Public health
Protocol
Implementation of a consumer-focused eHealth intervention for people with moderate-to-high cardiovascular disease risk: protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation
  1. Genevieve M Coorey1,2,
  2. Lis Neubeck3,4,5,
  3. Timothy Usherwood1,2,
  4. David Peiris1,2,
  5. Sharon Parker6,
  6. Annie Y S Lau7,
  7. Clara Chow2,8,
  8. Kathryn Panaretto9,
  9. Mark Harris6,
  10. Nicholas Zwar10,
  11. Julie Redfern2,8
  1. 1The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3School of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK
  4. 4Sydney Nursing School, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  5. 5Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
  6. 6Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  7. 7Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  8. 8Cardiovascular Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  9. 9Centre for Chronic Disease, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  10. 10School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Genevieve Coorey; gcoorey{at}georgeinstitute.org.au

Abstract

Introduction Technology-mediated strategies have potential to engage patients in modifying unhealthy behaviour and improving medication adherence to reduce morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD). Furthermore, electronic tools offer a medium by which consumers can more actively navigate personal healthcare information. Understanding how, why and among whom such strategies have an effect can help determine the requirements for implementing them at a scale. This paper aims to detail a process evaluation that will (1) assess implementation fidelity of a multicomponent eHealth intervention; (2) determine its effective features; (3) explore contextual factors influencing and maintaining user engagement; and (4) describe barriers, facilitators, preferences and acceptability of such interventions.

Methods and analysis Mixed-methods sequential design to derive, examine, triangulate and report data from multiple sources. Quantitative data from 3 sources will help to inform both sampling and content framework for the qualitative data collection: (1) surveys of patients and general practitioners (GPs); (2) software analytics; (3) programme delivery records. Qualitative data from interviews with patients and GPs, focus groups with patients and field notes taken by intervention delivery staff will be thematically analysed. Concurrent interview data collection and analysis will enable a thematic framework to evolve inductively and inform theory building, consistent with a realistic evaluation perspective. Eligible patients are those at moderate-to-high CVD risk who were randomised to the intervention arm of a randomised controlled trial of an eHealth intervention and are contactable at completion of the follow-up period; eligible GPs are the primary healthcare providers of these patients.

Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been received from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (AH&MRC) of New South Wales. Results will be disseminated via scientific forums including peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences.

Trial registration number ANZCTR 12613000715774.

  • PRIMARY CARE
  • PUBLIC HEALTH

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014353

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter Follow Lis Neubeck @lisneubeck, Julie Redfern @jredheart and The George Institute for Global Health @georgeinstitute

    • Contributors GC led the drafting of all sections of the manuscript; JR, LN and TU provided important feedback on the initial draft. Each author substantially contributed to design and concept of the programme process evaluation, provided critical revisions of important intellectual content and approved the final version for publication.

    • Funding The study is funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC; grant number 1047508). GC is funded by a University of Sydney Postgraduate Award (SC0649). JR is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship (1061793) co-funded with a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (G160523). CC is funded by a NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1105447) co-funded by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (100808). AL is funded by the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in eHealth (1032664)

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval Ethics approval has been received from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (ID 2013/716) and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (AH&MRC) of New South Wales (ID 959/13).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.