ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018
Feasibility of visual aids for risk evaluation by hospitalized patients with coronary artery disease: results from face-to-face interviews.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patients' Preferences after Recurrent Coronary Narrowing: Discrete Choice Experiments.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCommunicating information about risk and probability to patients is considered a difficult task. In this study, we aim to evaluate the use of visual aids representing perioperative mortality and long-term survival in the communication process for patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease at the National Institute of Cardiology, a Brazilian public hospital specializing in cardiology. PATIENTS AND
methodsOne-on-one interviews were conducted between August 1 and November 20, 2017. Patients were asked to imagine that their doctor was seeking their input in the decision regarding which treatment represented the best option for them. Patients were required to choose between alternatives by considering only the different benefits and risks shown in each scenario, described as the proportion of patients who had died during the perioperative period and within 5 years. Each participant evaluated the same eight scenarios. We evaluated their answers in a qualitative and quantitative analysis.
resultsThe main findings were that all patients verbally expressed concern about perioperative mortality and that 25% did not express concern about long-term mortality. Twelve percent considered the probabilities irrelevant on the grounds that their prognosis would depend on "God's will." Ten percent of the patients disregarded the reported likelihood of perioperative mortality, deciding to focus solely on the "chance of being cured." In the quantitative analysis, the vast majority of respondents chose the "correct" alternatives, meaning that they made consistent and rational choices.
conclusionThe use of visual aids to present risk attributes appeared feasible in our sample. The impact of heuristics and religious beliefs on shared health decision making needs to be explored better in future studies.
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.