Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28947435›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Development of a questionnaire to evaluate patients' awareness of cardiovascular disease risk in England's National Health Service Health Check preventive cardiovascular programme.

Maria Woringer, Jessica Jones Nielsen, Lara Zibarras, Julie Evason, Angelos P Kassianos, Matthew Harris, Azeem Majeed, Michael Soljak

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Awareness of cardiovascular risk among persons with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Maria WoringerDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Jessica Jones NielsenDepartment of Psychology, City University London, London, UK.
Lara ZibarrasDepartment of Psychology, City University London, London, UK.
Julie EvasonHealth Diagnostics Ltd, Chester, UK.
Angelos P KassianosDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8206-028X
Matthew HarrisInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Michael SoljakDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe National Health Service (NHS) Health Check is a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment and management programme in England aiming to increase CVD risk awareness among people at increased risk of CVD. There is no tool to assess the effectiveness of the programme in communicating CVD risk to patients.

aimsThe aim of this paper was to develop a questionnaire examining patients' CVD risk awareness for use in health service research evaluations of the NHS Health Check programme.

methodsWe developed an 85-item questionnaire to determine patients' views of their risk of CVD. The questionnaire was based on a review of the relevant literature. After review by an expert panel and focus group discussion, 22 items were dropped and 2 new items were added. The resulting 65-item questionnaire with satisfactory content validity (content validity indices≥0.80) and face validity was tested on 110 NHS Health Check attendees in primary care in a cross-sectional study between 21 May 2014 and 28 July 2014.

resultsFollowing analyses of data, we reduced the questionnaire from 65 to 26 items. The 26-item questionnaire constitutes four scales: Knowledge of CVD Risk and Prevention, Perceived Risk of Heart Attack/Stroke, Perceived Benefits and Intention to Change Behaviour and Healthy Eating Intentions. Perceived Risk (Cronbach's α=0.85) and Perceived Benefits and Intention to Change Behaviour (Cronbach's α=0.82) have satisfactory reliability (Cronbach's α≥0.70). Healthy Eating Intentions (Cronbach's α=0.56) is below minimum threshold for reliability but acceptable for a three-item scale.

conclusionsThe resulting questionnaire, with satisfactory reliability and validity, may be used in assessing patients' awareness of CVD risk among NHS Health Check attendees.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeProgram EvaluationCardiovascular DiseasesCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsState MedicineSurveys and Questionnairescardiovascular diseaseprimary preventionquestionnairerisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID28947435
PMCPMC5623403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.