ArticleAnnals of family medicine
Patients' preferences for ways to communicate benefits of cardiovascular medication.
Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Verbal Probability Terms for Communicating Clinical Risk - a Systematic Review.The Ulster medical journal · 2024Pooled it
- Acceptance and practicability of a visual communication tool in smoking cessation counselling: a randomised controlled trial.Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2013Trial
- The effectiveness of a graphical presentation in addition to a frequency format in the context of familial breast cancer risk communication: a multicenter controlled trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Trial
- Patient-physician communication of health and risk information in the management of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: a systematic scoping review.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Classifying and communicating risks in prediabetes according to fasting glucose and/or glycated hemoglobin: PREDAPS cohort study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- Impact of numeracy preferences on information needs for genome sequencing results.Patient education and counseling · 2021Article
- Do Preferred Risk Formats Lead to Better Understanding? A Multicenter Controlled Trial on Communicating Familial Breast Cancer Risks Using Different Risk Formats.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Effect of format on comprehension of adherence data in chronic disease: A cross-sectional study in HIV.Patient education and counseling · 2016Article
- The "Health Coaching" programme: a new patient-centred and visually supported approach for health behaviour change in primary care.BMC family practice · 2013Article
- How Difference Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- In this issue: Back to basics: talking, listening, and low-tech primary care.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe wanted to determine patients' willingness to take preventive cardiovascular disease (CVD) medication in relation to their 5-year CVD risk score and modes of communicating benefits of therapy.
methodsStudy participants were 934 consecutive patients drawn from family practitioners' waiting rooms in Auckland, New Zealand, who knew their 5-year CVD risk (ranging from 5% to 30%) and who completed a questionnaire asking them to rate how much various modes of communicating the benefits of therapy would encourage them to take medication daily, where the benefits from medication were proportional to their estimated CVD risk score.
resultsPatients' rankings for modes of communicating the benefits of therapy were little influenced by sex, age, ethnicity, numeracy score, 5-year CVD risk, or concern about a heart attack. Patients clearly found relative risk reduction most encouraging, with absolute risk reduction rated second overall and numbers needed to treat the least likely to be persuasive, although preferences covered the full range and were not predictable from demographic or 5-year CVD risk data. Pictures were preferred to numbers by 55.1%, with a people-chart or a bar chart being equally favored. Even so, 61.8% preferred a doctor's opinion to any presentation by numbers or pictures.
conclusionsPatients' willingness to take preventive cardiovascular medication depends more on mode of communicating treatment benefit than on their short-term CVD risk score or their level of concern about a future cardiovascular event. Because individual preferences were not predictable, more than 1 modality is likely to be clinically useful for each patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.