BackgroundDisease risk calculators are increasingly web‐based, but previous studies have shown that risk information often poses problems for lay users.ObjectiveTo examine how lay people understand the result derived from an online cardiometabolic risk calculator.DesignA qualitative study was performed, using the risk calculator in the Dutch National Prevention Program for cardiometabolic diseases. The study consisted of three parts: (i) attention: completion of the risk calculator while an eye tracker registered eye movements; (ii) recall: completion of a recall task; and (iii) interpretation: participation in a semi‐structured interview.Setting and participantsWe recruited people from the target population through an advertisement in a local newspaper; 16 people participated in the study, which took place in our university laboratory.ResultsEye‐tracking data showed that participants looked most extensively at numerical risk information. Percentages were recalled well, whereas natural frequencies and verbal labels were remembered less well. Five qualitative themes were derived from the interview data: (i) numerical information does not really sink in; (ii) the verbal categorical label made no real impact on people; (iii) people relied heavily on existing knowledge and beliefs; (iv) people zoomed in on risk factors, especially family history of diseases; and (v) people often compared their situation to that of their peers.Discussion and conclusionAlthough people paid attention to and recalled the risk information to a certain extent, they seemed to have difficulty in properly using this information for interpreting their risk.

What is already known on this subject? Online disease risk assessments have become widely available internationally. People with low SES and health literacy tend to participate less in health screening. Risk information is difficult to understand, yet little research has been carried out among people with low health literacy. What does this study add? People with low health literacy do not optimally use risk information in an online cardiometabolic risk assessment. The texts provided in the cardiometabolic risk assessment do not suit to their existing knowledge. The typical risk communication (numbers, bar graph, verbal label) seems to provoke undervaluation of risk.

BackgroundAttendance of a behavioural support programme facilitates smoking cessation. Disadvantaged smokers have been shown to attend less than their more affluent peers. We need to gain in-depth insight into underlying reasons for differing attendance behaviour in disadvantaged smokers, to better address this issue. This study aims to explore the underlying motivations, barriers and social support of smokers exhibiting different patterns of attendance at a free smoking cessation behavioural support programme in a disadvantaged neighbourhood of The Netherlands.MethodsIn 29 smokers undertaking smoking cessation group therapy or telephone counselling in a disadvantaged neighbourhood, qualitative interviews were completed, coded and analysed. Major themes were motivations, barriers to attend and social support. Motivations and social support were analysed with reference to the self-determination theory.ResultsTwo distinct patterns of attendance emerged: those who missed up to two sessions (“frequent attenders”), and those who missed more than two sessions (“infrequent attenders”). The groups differed in their motivations to attend, barriers to attendance, and in the level of social support they received. In comparison with the infrequent attenders, frequent attenders more often had intrinsic motivation to attend (e.g. enjoyed attending), and named more self-determined extrinsic motivations to attend, such as commitment to attendance and wanting to quit. Most of those mentioning intrinsic motivation did not mention a desire to quit as a motivation for attendance. No organizational barriers to attendance were mentioned by frequent attenders, such as misunderstandings around details of appointments. Frequent attenders experienced more social support within and outside the course.ConclusionMotivation to attend behavioural support, as distinct from motivation to quit smoking, is an important factor in attendance of smoking cessation courses in disadvantaged areas. Some focus on increasing motivation to attend may help to prevent participants missing sessions.