ArticleDigital health
Acceptability of digitally adapted cardiovascular risk reduction intervention content from the StrongPeople strong hearts program: A single-arm pilot study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Adapting Evidence Based Interventions (EBIs) for digital delivery can increase reach to additional populations and address barriers to engaging in traditional in-person programs. This mixed-methods study assessed the acceptability of a selection of digitally adapted content from StrongPeople Strong Hearts, an evidence-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention program for women. Methods: Eighteen women (mean age = 57.6 ±11.1, age range 37-74, 66.7% non-Hispanic White) were enrolled in a 4-week single-arm pilot study where adapted content was delivered through a private Facebook group. Mixed-method approaches assessed the acceptability of this abbreviated digital program. Participants completed feedback surveys (n=15) and focus groups (n=7) at the end of the study period. Results: Participants reported enjoying their overall experience with the adapted content (average score of 4.71 ± 0.59 out of 5) and reported learning new or valuable information (average score of 4.64 ± 0.61 out of 5). Analysis of focus groups revealed that participants (1) appreciated the variety of content, which provided flexibility for program engagement; (2) enjoyed shorter nutrition videos but preferred longer exercise videos; (3) desired more external motivation from the program; and (4) desired further support with food portions and tracking. Conclusions: This study supports the acceptability of StrongPeople Strong Hearts content adapted for digital delivery. Findings are comparable to the acceptability of the original program but highlight distinct challenges in transitioning some elements from an in-person to digital format. To address these needs, the complete digital adaptation of the program will continue to deliver a variety of content to allow for flexible engagement. Furthermore, additional content will consider the appropriate length and include more about food portions. Additional external motivators, such as a badge system and goal check-ins, will be integrated into the full program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.