Back

PERsonalised Knowledge to reduce the risk of Stroke (PERKS-International): a randomised controlled trial testing the efficacy of an mHealth application to reduce risk factors for the primary prevention of stroke

Gall, S.; Feigin, V. L.; Chappell, K.; Thrift, A. G.; Kleinig, T.; Cadilhac, D. A.; Bennett, D.; Nelson, M. R.; Purvis, T.; Jalili Moghaddam, S.; Kitsos, G.; Krishnamurthi, R.

2026-03-23 neurology
10.64898/2026.03.19.26348870 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and aimsWe evaluated the efficacy of the Stroke Riskometer mobile phone App to change the Lifes Simple 7(R) (LS7(R)) risk factor score at 6 months post-randomisation. Methods and designThis Phase III, prospective, outcome assessor-blinded, 2-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) in Australia and New Zealand recruited participants from August 2021 to January 2024. Inclusion criteria: age [≥]35 and [≤]75 years; [≥]2 risk factors; smartphone ownership; no cardiovascular disease history. The intervention group was given access to the App; the usual care group received one e-mail with generic risk factor information. The primary outcome was the mean between group difference in LS7(R) (score 0 [poor] to 14 [ideal] comprising blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, body mass index, smoking, physical activity and diet) from baseline to 6 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes were between group changes in individual LS7 items. Analyses were performed using intention to treat (ITT) principles with ANCOVA and linear mixed models to examine differences between groups, with pre-specified per protocol and subgroup analyses. ResultsWe randomised 862 participants (mean {+/-} SD age 58{+/-}11 years; 63% women; 74% Caucasian). At 6 months post-randomisation in ITT analyses, the mean difference between usual care (n=433) and intervention (n=429) groups in the change in LS7(R) score from baseline was 0.03 (95% CI -0.19, 0.25, p=0.79). Per protocol analyses (n=320 usual care; n=276 intervention) were similar (mean difference in change 0.11 95% CI -0.12, 0.34, p=0.34). Compared to usual care in ITT analyses, the intervention group had a borderline increase in metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes/week of physical activity (313.42 95% CI -2.80, 629.65, p=0.05), with no differences in other LS7(R) items. DiscussionAmong a general population aged 35 to 75 years with [≥]2 stroke risk factors, there was no evidence that having access to the App changed overall LS7(R) scores at 6-month follow-up. Participants in the intervention group did have a small increase in physical activity, compared to the usual care group after 6 months, but not other individual risk factors.

Matching journals

The top 12 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.7%
2
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.5%
3
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
4
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.0%
5
Stroke
35 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.7%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.7%
7
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
8
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
9
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.6%
10
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
11
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
12
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
50% of probability mass above
13
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
14
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
15
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
16
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
17
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
18
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
19
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
20
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
21
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.5%
22
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
23
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
24
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
39 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
25
European Journal of Neurology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
26
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
27
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.8%
28
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
29
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
30
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%