Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12386041›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2002

Patients' decisions about whether or not to take antihypertensive drugs: qualitative study.

John Benson, Nicky Britten

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Interventions to support shared decision making for hypertension: A systematic review of controlled studies.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

John BensonGeneral Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge CB2 2SR. jab62@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Nicky Britten

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe the ways in which patients taking antihypertensive drugs balance reservations against reasons for taking them.

designQualitative study using detailed interviews.

settingTwo urban general practices in the United Kingdom.

participantsMaximum variety sample of 38 interviewees receiving repeat prescriptions for antihypertensives.

main outcome measuresInterviewees' reservations about drugs and reasons for taking antihypertensives.

resultsPatients had reservations about drugs generally and reservations about antihypertensives specifically. Reasons for taking antihypertensive drugs comprised positive experiences with doctors, perceived benefits of medication, and pragmatic considerations. Patients weighed their reservations against reasons for taking antihypertensives in a way that made sense for them personally. Some individual patients weighed different reservations against different reasons for taking antihypertensives.

conclusionsPatients' ideas may derive from considerations unrelated to the drugs' pharmacology. Doctors who want their patients to make well informed choices about antihypertensives and to reach concordant decisions about prescribing should explore how individuals strike this balance, to personalise discussion of drug use.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntihypertensive AgentsFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedUrban HealthAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID12386041
PMCPMC129637

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.