Although the peer-reviewed study on which this story seems to have been based on makes the point that text messages could offer a low-cost strategy for reducing the chances of subsequent heart attacks, the story does not reflect on cost. A clear and readable chart in the story quantifies the apparent benefits of these text messages. But what’s missing here is some nuance: The control group saw a rise in blood pressure, whereas the experimental group remained relatively the same–their blood pressure didn’t actually get lower. So, does that even translate to an actual reduced heart disease risk? And does any of this actually prevent heart attacks? These unanswered questions could have been better emphasized. The concept of “harm” does not appear to be relevant here. Individuals may find text messages to be annoying, of course, but the study itself notes that participants “overwhelmingly” reacted positively to the intervention. That doesn’t make it into the story. The story makes it clear that the study utilized an experimental and a control group, and that this study duration was longer than past studies. Yet the headline suggests that text messages can “prevent” heart attacks. The study offers no evidence for that link: There was no measurement of heart attack rates between groups. Instead, they measured several surrogate markers associated with heart disease, such as lipid levels and blood pressure. This should have been stressed. Repeat heart attacks are relatively common, making continued, at-home treatment of heart attack victims important. The story clearly identifies one source as the leader of the study and includes a second source who appears to be independent of the research. Funding sources are missing from the story, but the study’s declarations of funding do not seem eyebrow-raising. The story does mention some other interventions used to prevent heart attacks, such as typical medications taken to lower blood pressure or cholesterol. The story explains that the study leader is now involved in an effort to replicate her results, which implies that the treatment regimen is not available at present. However, studies of social media and apps used to promote healthy behaviors are ubiquitous, so it might have been useful for the reporter to explore the availability of this strategy compared to others on the market now. The text does a decent job of explaining the novel aspects of the study compared to some similar efforts, though more could have been included on the results of the previous research. Also, since this particular study was actually published nearly a year ago, in September 2015, an effort to update our understanding of message effects would seem to make sense. We weren’t able to locate a news release, but the inclusion of an independent source in the story is a reliable indicator that the story didn’t rely on one.
How to Prevent a Heart Attack: Text Patients on Healthy Habits