OBJECTIVE: There is currently little research examining what individuals who are at risk of a stroke want from an invention program. In order to increase the usefulness of such programs, qualitative research methods were used explore invention design issues such as factors affecting accessibility of programs and preferred health information sources. METHODS: Thirty people, each with at least one stroke risk factor, participated in one of eight focus groups. RESULTS: Broad support was indicated for our proposed intervention. Participants perceived the value and likely success of such a program enhanced if it: (a) was integrated with, and supported by, other respected health services; (b) included social components (particularly important to women); (c) produced long-term benefits; and (d) included information that was personally relevant and practical in terms of implementing change. Three reasons emerged for continuing stroke education campaigns as a component of intervention programs; these were: (a) a lack of awareness among some participants of gaps in their stroke knowledge; (b) participants' explicit requests for specific rather than general information; and (c) the apparent failure of some participants to self-identify as at risk. CONCLUSION: This study yielded a number of important design considerations that should be taken into account when developing stroke intervention programs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We discuss ways of maximising the personal relevance of stroke prevention information along theoretically important dimensions, and consumers' recommendations for the design and delivery of stroke intervention programs.
OBJECTIVE: There is currently little research examining what individuals who are at risk of a stroke want from an invention program. In order to increase the usefulness of such programs, qualitative research methods were used explore invention design issues such as factors affecting accessibility of programs and preferred health information sources. METHODS: Thirty people, each with at least one stroke risk factor, participated in one of eight focus groups. RESULTS: Broad support was indicated for our proposed intervention. Participants perceived the value and likely success of such a program enhanced if it: (a) was integrated with, and supported by, other respected health services; (b) included social components (particularly important to women); (c) produced long-term benefits; and (d) included information that was personally relevant and practical in terms of implementing change. Three reasons emerged for continuing stroke education campaigns as a component of intervention programs; these were: (a) a lack of awareness among some participants of gaps in their stroke knowledge; (b) participants' explicit requests for specific rather than general information; and (c) the apparent failure of some participants to self-identify as at risk. CONCLUSION: This study yielded a number of important design considerations that should be taken into account when developing stroke intervention programs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We discuss ways of maximising the personal relevance of stroke prevention information along theoretically important dimensions, and consumers' recommendations for the design and delivery of stroke intervention programs.