Development and content validity of a website for patients with coronary artery disease.
Luiz Felipe Gonçalves Arroio, Juliana de Lima Lopes, Alba Lúcia Bottura Leite de Barros and 3 others
PMID 36722650WHAT IT FOUND
13 professionals and 8 patients with coronary artery disease rated a free-access education website as clear and useful.
This does not show it improves outcomes.
Key findings
01The EDUCACOR website has nine instructional domains covering coronary heart disease, non-drug treatment, drug treatment, diet, physical activity, smoking and alcohol, stress and sleep, and sexual activity.
0213 professional experts and 8 lay people with previous coronary artery disease completed the website assessment.
03Professional experts rated all general website indicators above the required agreement threshold; lay reviewers also met the required thresholds for assessed indicators.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
No randomised or controlled test of patient outcomes was performed. Only 13 professional experts and 8 lay people completed the assessment. The lay sample was recruited by snowball sampling and had to be literate and use computers with internet browsing. The authors did not assess lay experts' understanding of the topics. The expert assessment noted typing errors in one domain and recommended excluding stress practices not common in Brazil. The website was developed for a Brazilian context and may not fit other settings. No evidence is provided that the website changes knowledge, behavior, adherence, or clinical outcomes.
Declared interests
FAPESP Scientific Initiation Scholarship, Process 2020/04926-9. The paper gives no further conflict-of-interest statement.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the website improves coronary artery disease outcomes. The study only had professionals and lay people rate content; it did not test whether patients understood the material or changed behavior or health.