METHODS: This was a qualitative study utilising the constructivist grounded theory approach. A total of 31 individuals aged 30 years and above from the community were sampled purposively. Eight interviews and six focus groups were involved, using a semi-structured topic guide.
RESULTS: A conceptual framework was developed to explain the public's decision-making process on health check participation for CVD prevention. The intention to participate in health checks was influenced by the interplay between perceived relevance and the individual's readiness to face the outcome of health checks. Health checks were deemed relevant if people perceived themselves to be at risk of CVD and there was an advantage in knowing their cardiovascular status. People were ready to face the outcome of health checks if they wanted to know the results and were prepared to deal with the subsequent management. The decision to participate in health checks was also influenced by external factors such as the views of significant others, and the accessibility and availability of resources including time and finances.
CONCLUSIONS: The intention to screen for CVD is motivated by two internal factors: the perceived relevance of the disease and readiness to face screening outcomes. Strategies targeting the internal decision-making process may prove to be key in improving the uptake of screening.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of adults aged 18 and above attending a blood pressure screening program in community in conjunction with May Measurement Month 2017 in Malaysia. A structured self-administered questionnaire was given to the participants who gave verbal consent. Data analysis was done using SPSS v. 23 and multiple logistic regression was used to identify the determinants of knowledge on actions to be taken during stroke and recognition of stroke symptoms.
RESULTS: Out of 4096 respondents, 82.9-92.1% of them able to recognise the common stroke symptoms. and 74.2% of the study respondents will go to hospital within 4.5 h of stroke onset. According to binomial logistic regression analyses, adults aged 45 years old and above (OR 1.39 95%CI 1.01-1.92), being Malay (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.27-2.40), being non-smokers (OR = 2.491, 95% CI: 1.64-3.78), hypertensives (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.02-2.42)and diabetics (OR: 2.54, 95% CI:1.38-4.69) are determinants of right actions to be taken during stroke. Meanwhile, respondents aged 45 years old and older (OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.39-2.03), being Malay (OR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.24-1.79), hypertensive (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.04-1.66) and those who had a previous history of stroke (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.01-5.00) are determinants of good recognition of stroke symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall knowledge of stroke in our study population was good. Older age, being Malay, non-smokers, hypertensives and diabetics are determinants of right actions to be taken during stroke. Meanwhile, older age, being Malay, hypertensive and those who had a previous history of stroke are determinants of good recognition of stroke symptoms.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the utility and usability of ScreenMen.
METHODS: This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods. Healthy men working in a banking institution were recruited to participate in this study. They were purposively sampled according to job position, age, education level, and screening status. Men were asked to use ScreenMen independently while the screen activities were being recorded. Once completed, retrospective think aloud with playback was conducted with men to obtain their feedback. They were asked to answer the System Usability Scale (SUS). Intention to undergo screening pre- and postintervention was also measured. Qualitative data were analyzed using a framework approach followed by thematic analysis. For quantitative data, the mean SUS score was calculated and change in intention to screening was analyzed using McNemar test.
RESULTS: In total, 24 men participated in this study. On the basis of the qualitative data, men found ScreenMen useful as they could learn more about their health risks and screening. They found ScreenMen convenient to use, which might trigger men to undergo screening. In terms of usability, men thought that ScreenMen was user-friendly and easy to understand. The key revision done on utility was the addition of a reminder function, whereas for usability, the revisions done were in terms of attracting and gaining users' trust, improving learnability, and making ScreenMen usable to all types of users. To attract men to use it, ScreenMen was introduced to users in terms of improving health instead of going for screening. Another important revision made was emphasizing the screening tests the users do not need, instead of just informing them about the screening tests they need. A Quick Assessment Mode was also added for users with limited attention span. The quantitative data showed that 8 out of 23 men (35%) planned to attend screening earlier than intended after using the ScreenMen. Furthermore, 4 out of 12 (33%) men who were in the precontemplation stage changed to either contemplation or preparation stage after using ScreenMen with P=.13. In terms of usability, the mean SUS score of 76.4 (SD 7.72) indicated that ScreenMen had good usability.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that ScreenMen was acceptable to men in terms of its utility and usability. The preliminary data suggested that ScreenMen might increase men's intention to undergo screening. This paper also presented key lessons learned from the beta testing, which is useful for public health experts and researchers when developing a user-centered mobile Web app.