Digital Health Literacy and Attitudes Toward eHealth Technologies Among Patients With Cardiovascular Disease and Their Implications for Secondary Prevention: Survey Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Cardiovascular disease is the major cause of death worldwide, leading to a significant socioeconomic burden. Although secondary prevention is a cornerstone in chronic disease management, adherence to guideline recommendations in this regard often falters, leading to suboptimal outcomes. While eHealth technologies are promising for improving treatment adherence, they also represent a new approach to secondary prevention. However, a common critique is that extensive digitalization may not adequately address the needs of older adults with chronic medical conditions. Objective: This study aims to analyze eHealth literacy, digital use patterns, and general attitudes toward digital technologies in a collective of patients with cardiovascular disease to identify potential obstacles in implementing mobile health technologies in secondary preventive therapy. Methods: This survey-based study was a part of the baseline examination of the PreventiPlaque trial. It involved 240 participants with known coronary artery disease. The assessment evaluated their current understanding of the general use of digital devices. The questionnaire covered aspects such as the duration of daily use, personal attitudes, and the perceived burden associated with digital media. eHealth literacy was assessed within the target population and general demographic data were gathered, focusing on cardiovascular comorbidities and risk factors. Results: The analysis revealed an average age of 61.9 (SD 8.9) years, with 59.9% (n=144) of the participants being male. Overall, 37.3% (n=90) of the participants had previous knowledge of digital health interventions, while only 17.8% (n=41) had used them. Despite the generally low practical application within this study population, there was a high level of confidence in handling digital devices, with 61.9% (n=149) expressing themselves as either rather confident or very confident. Regarding the levels of eHealth literacy among the participants, 71.2% (n=170) claimed to be familiar with locating health information on the internet, and 64% (n=153) of participants felt capable of critically evaluating its quality. These levels of digital confidence were consistent across all age groups. Moreover, internet use rates remained high even among the older participants, with 80% (n=192) of those participants older than 75 years using the internet for 1-3 hours a day. Conclusions: The study unveiled a notable confidence level among participants regarding the use of digital devices, coupled with a favorable attitude toward digital media evident across all age brackets. Remarkably, internet use rates remained high, even among older participants. The actual utilization of digital health interventions was relatively low, potentially stemming from challenges in locating reliable sources. These findings emphasize the prospect of future eHealth interventions customized to the distinct needs and preferences of patients in cardiovascular disease management. Recognizing the incongruity between confidence in device use and the restricted adoption of digital health tools can guide the development of focused interventions to narrow this divide.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».