ArticleBMJ open2012
Public perceptions of coronary events risk factors: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Death by food: Why pharmacists should care.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC · 2015Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess public perceptions of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors.
designDiscrete choice experiment questionnaire.
settingSix provincial centres in Northern Ireland.
participants1000 adults of the general public in Northern Ireland. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The general public's perception of CHD risk factors. The effect of having risk factor(s) on that perception.
resultsTwo multinomial logit models were created. One was a basic model (no heterogeneity permitted), while the other permitted heterogeneity based on respondents' characteristics. In both models individuals with very high cholesterol were perceived to be at the highest risk of having a coronary event. Respondents who reported having high cholesterol perceived the risk contribution of very high cholesterol to be greater than those who reported having normal cholesterol. Similar findings were observed with blood pressure and smoking. Respondents who were male and older perceived the contribution of age and gender to be lower than respondents who were female and younger.
conclusionsRespondents with different risk factors perceived such factors differently. These divergent perceptions of CHD risk factors could be a barrier to behavioural change. This brings into focus the need for more tailored health promotion campaigns to tackle CHD.
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.