ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2015
Using quantitative risk information in decisions about statins: a qualitative study in a community setting.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care: a mixed-method systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- Patient beliefs and attitudes to taking statins: systematic review of qualitative studies.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Pooled it
- Caring for persons with Dementia: a qualitative study of the needs of carers following care recipient discharge from hospital.BMC palliative care · 2023Trial
- Patient-physician communication of health and risk information in the management of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: a systematic scoping review.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- 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
- Statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: modelling guidelines and patient preferences based on an Irish cohort.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Article
- Why are statin prescribing guidelines for primary prevention not always followed in primary care?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
- Tools and tables in cardiovascular risk management: doing more harm than good?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015Article
- Examining the Impact of Polygenic Risk Information in Primary Care.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA large literature informs guidance for GPs about communicating quantitative risk information so as to facilitate shared decision making. However, relatively little has been written about how patients utilise such information in practice.
aimTo understand the role of quantitative risk information in patients' accounts of decisions about taking statins. DESIGN AND
settingThis was a qualitative study, with participants recruited and interviewed in community settings.
methodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 participants aged >50 years, all of whom had been offered statins. Data were analysed thematically, using elements of the constant comparative method.
resultsInterviewees drew frequently on numerical test results to explain their decisions about preventive medication. In contrast, they seldom mentioned quantitative risk information, and never offered it as a rationale for action. Test results were spoken of as objects of concern despite an often-explicit absence of understanding, so lack of understanding seems unlikely to explain the non-use of risk estimates. Preventive medication was seen as 'necessary' either to treat test results, or because of personalised, unequivocal advice from a doctor.
conclusionThis study's findings call into question the assumption that people will heed and use numerical risk information once they understand it; these data highlight the need to consider the ways in which different kinds of knowledge are used in practice in everyday contexts. There was little evidence from this study that understanding probabilistic risk information was a necessary or valued condition for making decisions about statin use.
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.