Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11906538›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2002

Using disease risk estimates to guide risk factor interventions: field test of a patient workbook for self-assessing coronary risk.

J Michael Paterson, Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas, C David Naylor

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

J Michael PatersonInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. paterson@ices.on.ca
Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas
C David Naylor

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the feasibility and acceptability of a patient workbook for self-assessing coronary risk.

designPilot study, with post-study physician and patient interviews. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Twenty southern Ontario family doctors and 40 patients for whom they would have used the workbook under normal practice conditions.

interventionsThe study involved convening two sequential groups of family physicians: the first (n=10) attended focus group meetings to help develop the workbook (using algorithms from the Framingham Heart Study); the second (n=20) used the workbook in practice with 40 patients. Follow-up interviews were by interviewer-administered questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Physicians' and patients' opinions of the workbook's format, content, helpfulness, feasibility, and potential for broad application, as well as patients' perceived 10-year risk of a coronary event measured before and after using the workbook.

resultsIt took an average of 18 minutes of physician time to use the workbook: roughly 7 minutes to introduce it to patients, and about 11 minutes to discuss the results. Assessments of the workbook were generally favourable. Most patients were able to complete it on their own (78%), felt they had learned something (80%) and were willing to recommend it to someone else (98%). Similarly, 19 of 20 physicians found it helpful and would use it in practice with an average of 18% of their patients (range: 1-80%). The workbook helped to correct misperceptions patients had about their personal risk of a coronary event over the next 10 years (pre-workbook (mean (SD) %): 35.2 (16.9) vs. post-workbook: 17.3 (13.5), P < 0.0001; estimate according to algorithm: 10.6 (7.6)).

conclusionsGiven a simple tool, patients can and will assess their own risk of CHD. Such tools could help inform otherwise healthy individuals that their risk is increased, allowing them to make more informed decisions about their behaviours and treatment.

Indexed as

PamphletsPatient ParticipationAdultAgedAlgorithmsCoronary DiseaseFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioPilot ProjectsRisk AssessmentSelf-Assessment

Identifiers

PMID11906538
PMCPMC5060131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.