Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27914472›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

The response to receiving phenotypic and genetic coronary heart disease risk scores and lifestyle advice - a qualitative study.

Guy Shefer, Barbora Silarova, Juliet Usher-Smith, Simon Griffin

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07039123 (Polygenic Risk Score to Optimize Primary Prevention in Intermediate Risk Population), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07039123 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Polygenic Risk Score to Optimize Primary Prevention in Intermediate Risk Population (PERSONAL)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of BernRan2025 to 2027Enrolled205ConditionsPrimary Prevention of Cardiovascular DiseaseArmsPolygenic Risk Score for Coronary Artery Disease (PRS-CAD), Standardized Risk Communication Tool (SCORE2)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guy SheferMRC- Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, 7 Cavesson Court, Cambridge, CB43TB, UK. guy.shefer@anglia.ac.uk.
Barbora SilarovaMRC- Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, 7 Cavesson Court, Cambridge, CB43TB, UK.
Juliet Usher-SmithDepartment of Public Helath and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Simon GriffinDepartment of Public Helath and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/08/014/24067British Heart Foundation SP/09/002Medical Research Council G0800270Medical Research Council MC_U106179474Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividuals routinely receive information about their risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) based on traditional risk factors as part of their primary care. We are also able to calculate individual's risk of CHD based on their genetic information and at present genetic testing for common diseases is available to the public. Due to the limitations in previous studies further understanding is needed about the impact of the risk information on individual's well-being and health-behaviour. We aimed to explore the short term response to receiving different forms of CHD risk information and lifestyle advice for risk reduction.

methodsWe conducted fourty-one face-to-face interviews and two focus groups across England with participants from the INFORM trial who received a combination of individualised phenotypic and genotypic CHD risk scores and web-based lifestyle advice. Risk scores were presented in different formats, e.g. absolute 10 year risk was presented as a thermometer and expressed as a percentage, natural frequency and 'heart age'. Interviews and focus groups explored participants' understanding and reaction to the risk scores and attempts to change lifestyle during the intervention. We tape-recorded and transcribed the interviews and focus groups and analysed them using thematic analysis.

resultsThree main themes were identified: limitations of risk scores to generate concern about CHD risk; the advantages of the 'heart age' format of risk score presentation in communicating a message of sub-optimal lifestyle; and intentions and attempts to make moderate lifestyle changes which were prompted by the web-based lifestyle advice.

conclusionsThere are a number of limitations to the use of risk scores to communicate a message about the need for a lifestyle change. Of the formats used, the 'heart age', if noticed, appears to convey the most powerful message about how far from optimal risk an individual person is. An interactive, user friendly, goal setting based lifestyle website can act as a trigger to initiate moderate lifestyle changes, regardless of concerns about risk scores.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN17721237 . Registered 12 January 2015.

Indexed as

Life StyleRisk Reduction BehaviorAdultCoronary DiseaseEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsGenetic CounselingHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchRisk FactorsCardiovascular diseaseGeneticsHealth behaviourPhysical activityRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID27914472
PMCPMC5135826
OpenAlexW2559406020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.