Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30413514›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

'People like you?': how people with hypertension make sense of future cardiovascular risk-a qualitative study.

Iain J Marshall, Charles D A Wolfe, Christopher McKevitt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Iain J MarshallPopulation Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2594-2654
Charles D A WolfePopulation Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8264-0981
Christopher McKevittPopulation Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N015185/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend that patients' future CVD risk (as a percentage) is estimated and used to inform shared treatment decisions. We sought to understand the perspectives of patients with hypertension on their future risk of CVD.

designQualitative, semistructured interviews and thematic analysis.

participantsPeople with hypertension who had not experienced a cardiovascular event recruited from primary care.

settingParticipants were purposively sampled from two primary care practices in South London. Interviews were transcribed, and a thematic analysis was conducted.

results24 people participated; participants were diverse in age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Younger working-aged people were under-represented. Contrasting with probabilistic risk, many participants understood future CVD as binary and unknowable. Roughly half of participants avoided contemplating future CVD risk; for some, lifestyle change and medication obviated the need to think about CVD risk. Some participants identified with one portion of the probability fraction ('I'd be one of

conclusionsRisk as typically calculated and communicated (eg, the risk of '100 people like you') may not be meaningful for patients who do not identify with the denominator. Comparing an individual's risk with their peers could be more meaningful.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAgedAged, 80 and overCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchRisk Factorshypertensionqualitative researchrisk management

Identifiers

PMID30413514
PMCPMC6231586
OpenAlexW2899764809

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.