Oral Presentation Australian and New Zealand Stroke Organisation Conference 2025

Exploring participants’ experiences with the PERKS-International randomised controlled trial (122422)

Tara Purvis 1 , Kathleen Bagot 1 , Rita Krishnamurthi 2 , Valery Feigin 2 , Shabnam Jalili-Moghaddam 2 , Amanda G Thrift 3 , Timothy J Kleinig 4 5 , Dominique A Cadilhac 1 6 , Derrick A Bennett 7 , Mark R Nelson 8 , Gemma Kitsos 8 , Seana L Gall 8
  1. Stroke and Ageing Research, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
  2. National Institute for Stroke & Applied Neurosciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
  3. Epidemiology and Prevention Unit, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
  4. Department of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
  5. Department of Neurology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia
  6. Stroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia
  7. Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  8. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Introduction: The PERsonalised Knowledge to reduce the risk of Stroke (PERKS-International) trial, assessed if the Stroke RiskometerTM App, which provides individual health data and prevention advice, changed risk factors at 6-months in Australia and New Zealand. We aimed to explore participant experiences to understand the neutral trial result.

Methods: Mixed-method process evaluation included theory-informed participant satisfaction surveys and interviews with purposively selected intervention and control participants. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and thematic analysis conducted for qualitative data.

Results: 370/429 intervention and 389/433 control participants completed surveys (63% female, median age 61), with 33 interviews (20 intervention, 13 control; 18 Australia, 15 New Zealand). Key themes identified were: 1) Motivation (participant selection): participants in both groups joined to learn about their personal risk (38%) or to help by supporting medical research (29%), while few were motivated by wanting to make lifestyle changes; 2) Implementation: The ‘hands-off’ approach mimicked real-life but many participants across both groups wanted more support, particularly about managing their risks; 3) App experience (intervention): Although 79% downloaded the App, many found its purpose and functions unclear, resulting in low or inconsistent use and engagement. More personalised and specific information was considered essential; 4) Addressing risk factors: While both groups reported lifestyle changes related to risks, challenges existed with not knowing ‘how to’ change behaviours or ‘addressing barriers’ to change.

Conclusion: We determined several potential factors influencing the neutral trial result. Future strategies should consider participant readiness to change, with tailored individual risk factor modification content and support.