ArticleBMJ open2016
Patients' estimations of the importance of preventive health services: a nationwide, population-based cross-sectional study in Portugal.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and determinants of community members utilizing preventive services offered by family physicians in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2023Article
- Patients' Perspectives about Lifestyle Behaviors and Health in the Context of Family Medicine: A Cross-Sectional Study in Portugal.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Expectations about check-up examinations among Swiss residents: A nationwide population-based cross-sectional survey.PloS one · 2021Article
- The Problem-Solving Decision-Making scale-translation and validation for the Portuguese language: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- The physical examination: a survey of patient preferences and expectations during primary care visits.Postgraduate medicine · 2020Article
- Diagnostic and laboratory test ordering in Northern Portuguese Primary Health Care: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine, in the context of primary care preventive health services, the level of importance that Portuguese patients attribute to different preventive activities.
designCross-sectional study.
settingPrimary Healthcare, Portugal.
participants1000 Portuguese adults selected by a stratified cluster sampling design were invited to participate in a computer-assisted telephone survey. Persons with a cognitive or physical disability that hampered the ability to complete a telephone interview and being a nursing home resident or resident in any other type of collective dwelling were excluded. OUTCOMES: Mean level of importance assigned to 20 different medical preventive activities, using a scale of 1-10, with 1 corresponding to 'no importance for you and your health' and 10 indicating 'very important'.
resultsThe mean level of importance assigned to medical preventive activity was 7.70 (95% CI 7.60 to 7.80). Routine blood and urine tests were considered the most important, with an estimated mean of 9.15 (95% CI 9.07 to 9.24), followed by female-specific interventions (Pap smear, mammography and gynaecological and breast ultrasounds), with mean importance ranging from 8.45 (95% CI 8.23 to 8.63) for mammography to 8.56 (95% CI 8.36 to 8.76) for Pap smear. Advice regarding alcohol consumption (6.18; 95% CI 5.96 to 6.39) and tobacco consumption (5.99; 95% CI 5.75 to 6.23) were considered much less important.
conclusionsOur results reveal that Portuguese patients overestimate the importance of preventive medical activities, tend to give more importance to diagnostic and laboratory tests than to lifestyle measures, do not discriminate tests that are important and evidence-based, and seem not be aware of the individualisation of risk. Family physicians should be aware of these optimistic expectations, because these can influence the doctor-patient relationship when discussing these interventions and incorporating personalised 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.