Trial reportAmerican journal of preventive medicine2017
A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Personalized Multi-Condition Risk Assessment in Primary Care.
Trial report in American journal of preventive medicine, 2017. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Short-Term VA Health Care Expenditures Following a Health Risk Assessment and Coaching Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Trial
- An Intervention Tool to Increase Patient-Physician Discussion of Lifestyle Risk Factors for Breast Cancer.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2019Trial
- Randomized Trial of Personalized Breast Density and Breast Cancer Risk Notification.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Trial
- Digital Health Interventions to Enhance Prevention in Primary Care: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Commentary: 20 years online with "Your Disease Risk".Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2021Article
- Accuracy of self-perceived risk for common conditions.Cogent medicine · 2018Article
- Using an Internet-Based Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool to Improve Social-Cognitive Precursors of Physical Activity.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2017Article
- A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPersonal risk for multiple conditions should be assessed in primary care. This study evaluated whether collection of risk factors to generate electronic health record (EHR)-linked health risk appraisal (HRA) for coronary heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer was associated with improved patient-provider communication, risk assessment, and plans for breast cancer screening.
methodsThis pragmatic trial recruited adults with upcoming visits to 11 primary care practices during 2013-2014 (N=3,703). Pre-visit, intervention patients completed a risk factor and perception assessment and received an HRA; coded risk factor data were sent to the EHR. Post-visit, intervention patients reported risk perception. Pre-visit, control patients only completed the risk perception assessment; post-visit they also completed the risk factor assessment and received the HRA. No data were sent to the EHR for controls. Accuracy/improvement of self-perceived risk was assessed by comparing self-perceived to calculated risk.
resultsThe intervention was associated with improvement of patient-provider communication of changes to improve health (78.5% vs 74.1%, AOR=1.67, 99% CI=1.07, 2.60). There was a similar trend for discussion of risk (54.1% vs 45.5%, AOR=1.34, 95% CI=0.97, 1.85). The intervention was associated with greater improvement in accuracy of self-perceived risk for diabetes (16.0% vs 12.6%, p=0.006) and colorectal cancer (27.9% vs 17.2%, p<0.001) with a similar trend for coronary heart disease and breast cancer. There were no changes in plans for breast cancer screening.
conclusionsPatient-reported risk factors and EHR-linked multi-condition HRAs in primary care can modestly improve communication and promote accuracy of self-perceived 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.