ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2013
Cardiovascular risk scores: qualitative study of how primary care practitioners understand and use them.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care: a mixed-method systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Primary care online training on multifactorial breast cancer risk: pre-post evaluation study.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Statins for primary prevention in multimorbid patients: to prescribe or not to prescribe? A qualitative analysis of general practitioners' decision-making processes.Family practice · 2025Article
- A study to assess the effect of yoga and diet on Framingham risk score among high-risk cardiovascular subjects.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
- Prevalence of One-Year Mortality after Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Placement: An Opportunity for Palliative Care?Journal of palliative medicine · 2023Article
- Multimorbidity and statin prescription for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases: A cross-sectional study in general practice in France.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- The Disconnect Between Development and Intended Use of Clinical Prediction Models for Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Real-World Data Illustration.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2022Article
- Factors predicting statin prescribing for primary prevention: a historical cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- Evaluating risk of dementia in older people: a pathway to personalized prevention?European heart journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Incorporating cancer risk information into general practice: a qualitative study using focus groups with health professionals.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Article
- Cardiovascular disease risk and prevention amongst Syrian refugees: mixed methods study of Médecins Sans Frontières programme in Jordan.Conflict and health · 2017Article
- The response to receiving phenotypic and genetic coronary heart disease risk scores and lifestyle advice - a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2016Article
- Article
- Understanding clinical prediction models as 'innovations': a mixed methods study in UK family practice.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Article
- Observational
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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and the Quality Outcomes Framework require practitioners to use cardiovascular risk scores in assessments for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
aimTo explore GPs understanding and use of cardiovascular risk scores. DESIGN AND
settingQualitative study with purposive maximum variation sampling of 20 GPs working in Oxfordshire, UK. Method Thematic analysis of transcriptions of face-to-face interviews with participants undertaken by two individuals (one clinical, one non-clinical).
resultsGPs use cardiovascular risk scores primarily to guide treatment decisions by estimating the risk of a vascular event if the patient remains untreated. They expressed considerable uncertainty about how and whether to take account of existing drug treatment or other types of prior risk modification. They were also unclear about the choice between the older scores, based on the Framingham study, and newer scores, such as QRISK. There was substantial variation in opinion about whether scores could legitimately be used to illustrate to patients the change in risk as a result of treatment. The overall impression was of considerable confusion.
conclusionThe drive to estimate risk more precisely by qualifying guidance and promoting new scores based on partially-treated populations appears to have created unnecessary confusion for little obvious benefit. National guidance needs to be simplified, and, to be fit for purpose, better reflect the ways in which cardiovascular risk scores are currently used in general practice. Patients may be better served by simple advice to use a Framingham score and exercise more clinical judgement, explaining to patients the necessary imprecision of any individual estimate of risk.
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.