2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Personalized E-Coaching in Cardiovascular Risk Reduction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives:

          To assess whether electronic (e-) coaching, using personalized web-based lifestyle and risk factor counselling with additional email prompts, provides additional risk reduction when added to standard of care (SOC) in individuals at increased risk.

          Methods:

          Between June 2013 and May 2015, 402 participants were allocated 1:1 to e-coaching and SOC versus SOC. Participants free of manifest cardiovascular disease, with internet access, and a 10-year QRISK2 cardiovascular risk of ≥10% were enrolled. Change in oscillometric carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) from baseline to six months was the primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes included change in blood pressure (BP), weight, and risk scores. Analysis was by intention to treat.

          Results:

          Mean (±SD) age was 65.5 (5.6) years with 37% females. Primary outcome data were available for 94%. There was no difference in PWV reductions between e-coaching and standard of care groups (–0.16 m/s vs. –0.25 m/s, 95% confidence interval –0.39 to 0.22, p = 0.56). There were no differences in the improvement between groups for BP, weight, Framingham, or QRISK2 scores. Pulse wave velocity change was more favorable in those with a higher level of education (p = 0.04), but was not associated with age, gender, presence of diabetes, baseline QRISK2 score, or logins to the website.

          Conclusions:

          In individuals at increased cardiovascular risk, a comprehensive ‘health check’ program modestly reduced future risk. Personalized e-coaching did not provide added risk reduction. Currently there is no evidence to routinely recommend e-coaching in cardiovascular health check programs.

          Trial registration:

          HAPPY London ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01911910

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors.

          Although computer-tailored promotion of dietary change and physical activity has been identified as a promising intervention strategy, there is a need for a more systematic evaluation of the evidence. This study systematically reviews the scientific literature on computer-tailored physical activity and nutrition education. Intervention studies published from 1965 up to September 2004 were identified through a structured search in PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science and an examination of reference lists of relevant publications. Studies were included that applied a pretest-posttest randomized-controlled trial design, were aimed at primary prevention among adults, used computer-tailored interventions to change physical activity and dietary behaviors, and were published in English. The search resulted in 30 publications-11 on physical activity behaviors and 26 on nutrition behaviors, some studies investigated multiple behaviors. Three of 11 of the physical activity studies and 20 of 26 of the nutrition studies found significant effects of the tailored interventions. The evidence was most consistent for tailored interventions on fat reduction. Overall, there seems to be potential for the application of computer tailoring for promoting healthy diets, but more research is needed to test computer-tailored interventions against other state-of-the-art intervention techniques and to identify the mechanisms underlying successful computer tailoring.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012): The Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts).

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Multiple risk factor interventions for primary prevention of coronary heart disease.

              Multiple risk factor interventions using counselling and educational methods assumed to be efficacious and cost-effective in reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality and morbidity and that they should be expanded. Trials examining risk factor changes have cast doubt on the effectiveness of these interventions. To assess the effects of multiple risk factor interventions for reducing total mortality, fatal and non-fatal events from CHD and cardiovascular risk factors among adults assumed to be without prior clinical evidence CHD.. We updated the original search BY SEARCHING CENTRAL (2006, Issue 2), MEDLINE (2000 to June 2006) and EMBASE (1998 to June 2006), and checking bibliographies. Randomised controlled trials of more than six months duration using counselling or education to modify more than one cardiovascular risk factor in adults from general populations, occupational groups or specific risk factors (i.e. diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, obesity). Two authors extracted data independently. We expressed categorical variables as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where studies published subsequent follow-up data on mortality and event rates, we updated these data. We found 55 trials (163,471 participants) with a median duration of 12 month follow up. Fourteen trials (139,256 participants) with reported clinical event endpoints, the pooled ORs for total and CHD mortality were 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.05) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.07), respectively. Total mortality and combined fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events showed benefits from intervention when confined to trials involving people with hypertension (16 trials) and diabetes (5 trials): OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.89) and OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.83), respectively. Net changes (weighted mean differences) in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (53 trials) and blood cholesterol (50 trials) were -2.71 mmHg (95% CI -3.49 to -1.93), -2.13 mmHg (95% CI -2.67 to -1.58 ) and -0.24 mmol/l (95% CI -0.32 to -0.16), respectively. The OR for reduction in smoking prevalence (20 trials) was 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.00). Marked heterogeneity (I(2) > 85%) for all risk factor analyses was not explained by co-morbidities, allocation concealment, use of antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering drugs, or by age of trial. Interventions using counselling and education aimed at behaviour change do not reduce total or CHD mortality or clinical events in general populations but may be effective in reducing mortality in high-risk hypertensive and diabetic populations. Risk factor declines were modest but owing to marked unexplained heterogeneity between trials, the pooled estimates are of dubious validity. Evidence suggests that health promotion interventions have limited use in general populations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Consultant Cardiologist and Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer
                Journal
                Ann Glob Health
                Ann Glob Health
                2214-9996
                Annals of Global Health
                Ubiquity Press
                2214-9996
                12 July 2019
                2019
                : 85
                : 1
                : 107
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Advanced Cardiovascular Imaging and Research, William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, UK
                [2 ]Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
                [3 ]Cardiologie Centra Nederland, Utrecht, NL
                [4 ]Mount Sinai Heart, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, US
                [5 ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Radiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, NL
                [6 ]Center for Health Decision Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, US
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Mohammed Y. Khanji ( m.khanji@ 123456qmul.ac.uk )
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5903-4454
                Article
                10.5334/aogh.2496
                6634325
                31298823
                d657cffa-9c6e-4c65-a6a1-e76d8389ae6a
                Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s)

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                Funding
                This work was supported by a large project grant from Barts Charity for the HAPPY London study (grant number 437/1412). The HAPPY London team acknowledges the support of the National Institute for Health Research, through the Clinical Research Network. Panasonic provided loan of the CardioHealth system for carotid ultrasound assessment. This work forms part of the translational research portfolio of the Barts Biomedical Research Centre, which is supported and funded by the NIHR. The funders had no role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the decision to approve publication of the final manuscript.
                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article