Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb 1;20(2):e29.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.8538.

Clinical Validity, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculators: Systematic Review

Carissa Bonner  1   2 , Michael Anthony Fajardo  1   2 , Samuel Hui  1 , Renee Stubbs  1 , Lyndal Trevena  1   2
Affiliations

Clinical Validity, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculators: Systematic Review

Carissa Bonner et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Online health information is particularly important for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, where lifestyle changes are recommended until risk becomes high enough to warrant pharmacological intervention. Online information is abundant, but the quality is often poor and many people do not have adequate health literacy to access, understand, and use it effectively.

Objective: This project aimed to review and evaluate the suitability of online CVD risk calculators for use by low health literate consumers in terms of clinical validity, understandability, and actionability.

Methods: This systematic review of public websites from August to November 2016 used evaluation of clinical validity based on a high-risk patient profile and assessment of understandability and actionability using Patient Education Material Evaluation Tool for Print Materials.

Results: A total of 67 unique webpages and 73 unique CVD risk calculators were identified. The same high-risk patient profile produced widely variable CVD risk estimates, ranging from as little as 3% to as high as a 43% risk of a CVD event over the next 10 years. One-quarter (25%) of risk calculators did not specify what model these estimates were based on. The most common clinical model was Framingham (44%), and most calculators (77%) provided a 10-year CVD risk estimate. The calculators scored moderately on understandability (mean score 64%) and poorly on actionability (mean score 19%). The absolute percentage risk was stated in most (but not all) calculators (79%), and only 18% included graphical formats consistent with recommended risk communication guidelines.

Conclusions: There is a plethora of online CVD risk calculators available, but they are not readily understandable and their actionability is poor. Entering the same clinical information produces widely varying results with little explanation. Developers need to address actionability as well as clinical validity and understandability to improve usefulness to consumers with low health literacy.

Keywords: cardiovascular disease; risk assessment; risk communication; risk formats.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Search strategy and results (updated with higher res image).
Figure 2
Figure 2
An example of a risk calculator with a high understandability Patient Education Material Evaluation Tool for Print Materials score.
Figure 3
Figure 3
An example of a risk calculator with a high actionability Patient Education Material Evaluation Tool for Print Materials score.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion International. 2000;15(3):259–267. doi: 10.1093/heapro/15.3.259. - DOI
    1. Adams RJ, Appleton SL, Hill CL, Dodd M, Findlay C, Wilson DH. Risks associated with low functional health literacy in an Australian population. Med J Aust. 2009 Nov 16;191(10):530–534. - PubMed
    1. Adult literacy and life skills survey, summary results. Australia (reissue) Sydney: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2006. [2017-07-24]. http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/B22A471C221C7BA... 6sNWpqeJn.
    1. Sørensen K, Pelikan JM, Röthlin F, Ganahl K, Slonska Z, Doyle G, Fullam J, Kondilis B, Agrafiotis D, Uiters E, Falcon M, Mensing M, Tchamov K, van den Broucke S, Brand H. Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU) Eur J Public Health. 2015 Dec;25(6):1053–1058. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckv043. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/25843827 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rootman I, Gordon-El-Bihbety D. A vision for a health literate Canada: report of the Expert Panel on Health Literacy. Ontario: Canadian Public Health Association; [2017-07-31]. https://www.cpha.ca/vision-health-literate-canada-report-expert-panel-he... 6sNWwPUei.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources