Trial reportVascular health and risk management2013
Effectiveness of a quality improvement intervention targeting cardiovascular risk factors: are patients responsive to information and encouragement by mail or post?
Trial report in Vascular health and risk management, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- How Behavior Change Strategies are Used to Design Digital Interventions to Improve Medication Adherence and Blood Pressure Among Patients With Hypertension: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Digital health interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2015Pooled it
- Is remote blood pressure monitoring and management a better approach for patients with hypertension? A narrative review.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2023Review
- Rationale and study design of the MyHEART study: A young adult hypertension self-management randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2019Article
- Feasibility of a birth cohort study dedicated to assessing acute infections using symptom diaries and parental collection of biomaterials.BMC infectious diseases · 2015Article
- Molecular sources of residual cardiovascular risk, clinical signals, and innovative solutions: relationship with subclinical disease, undertreatment, and poor adherence: implications of new evidence upon optimizing cardiovascular patient outcomes.Vascular health and risk management · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is important evidence on the beneficial effects of treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in terms of morbidity and mortality, but important challenges remain in motivating patients to adhere to their treatment regimen. This study aimed to describe the effectiveness of a quality improvement intervention that included information and regular encouragement by email or letter on cardiovascular risk factors for patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease.
methodsThis randomized single-blind study included patients of both sexes aged between 45 and 80 years old who had increased cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomly allocated to either a usual care group (UCG) or advanced care group (ACG). Patients in the UCG received regular care while patients in the ACG received usual care plus regular information and encouragement on cardiovascular risk factors by email or letter. Visits for both groups were planned at 0, 3, and 6 months. The outcome measures were blood pressure, weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and smoking status.
resultsOut of 178 eligible patients from one single primary care practice, 55 participated in the study, three of whom dropped out. After 6 months, there was a significant decrease in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the UCG and ACG (P < 0.05). The decreases were already significant after 3 months, except for systolic blood pressure in the UCG. There was also a significant increase in the proportion of patients who met the target values for blood pressure in the UCG and ACG. There was a nonsignificant decrease of the average weight in the ACG, but significantly more patients lost weight in the UCG (P = 0.02). BMI, WC, and smoking status did not change in either group.
conclusionThis study found that there was a significant decrease of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in both study groups. Weight, BMI, WC, and smoking did not improve in either group. Information on cardiovascular risk factors and encouragement by means of letters or email did not provide additional benefits. Thus, effective patient empowerment probably requires more behaviorally sophisticated support to increase self-management, self-efficacy, and self-esteem in patients.
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.