SynthesisBMJ open2019
Online decision aids for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: systematic search, evaluation of quality and suitability for low health literacy patients.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic review of effectiveness and quality assessment of patient education materials and decision aids for breathlessness.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- The Effect of a Patient Decision Aid Developed for Chinese Primary Angle Closure Patients: A Randomized Control Trial.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Trial
- A realist evaluation approach to explaining the role of context in the impact of a complex eHealth intervention for improving prevention of cardiovascular disease.BMC health services research · 2020Trial
- Shared decision-making with patients with limited health literacy - experiences and needs of GPs regarding values clarification.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Beyond ad hoc home blood pressure monitoring: The need for standardisation and integration into primary care.Journal of human hypertension · 2026Article
- Prioritizing Equity in Design and Implementation of Consumer-Facing Digital Resources to Support Engagement and Shared Decision-Making.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Appraising the Quality of Patient Decision Aids for Brain and Heart Health: An Environmental Scan with a Health Equity Lens.CJC open · 2026Article
- A health literate evaluation of a reproductive health education program for young men with sickle cell disease.Journal of communication in healthcare · 2026Article
- Defining the strategies to advance health-literacy-friendly patient decision aids based on the ICA-NRM approach.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Comparative Assessment of Large Language Model Outputs and NHS Patient Information in Oral Medicine.Cureus · 2025Article
- Appropriateness of Web-Based Resources for Home Blood Pressure Measurement and Their Alignment With Guideline Recommendations, Readability, and End User Involvement: Environmental Scan of Web-Based Resources.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Hip and Knee Total Joint Arthroplasty Online Resources for Patients and Health Care Professionals: A Canadian Environmental Scan.Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2024Article
- Customization options in consumer health information materials on type-2 diabetes mellitus-an analysis of modifiable features in different types of media.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- Targeting behavioral factors with digital health and shared decision-making to promote cardiac rehabilitation-a narrative review.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Review
- Implementing patient decision aids into general practice clinical decision support systems: Feasibility study in cardiovascular disease prevention.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- US practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies and spending for adults with diabetes and cardiovascular disease.Health affairs scholar · 2023Article
- Biological age calculators to motivate lifestyle change: Environmental scan of online tools and evaluation of behaviour change techniques.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRecent guideline changes for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention medication have resulted in calls to implement shared decision-making rather than arbitrary treatment thresholds. Less attention has been paid to existing tools that could facilitate this. Decision aids are well-established tools that enable shared decision-making and have been shown to improve CVD prevention adherence. However, it is unknown how many CVD decision aids are publicly available for patients online, what their quality is like and whether they are suitable for patients with lower health literacy, for whom the burden of CVD is greatest. This study aimed to identify and evaluate all English language, publicly available online CVD prevention decision aids.
designSystematic review of public websites in August to November 2016 using an environmental scan methodology, with updated evaluation in April 2018. The decision aids were evaluated based on: (1) suitability for low health literacy populations (understandability, actionability and readability); and (2) International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Understandability and actionability using the validated Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P scale), readability using Gunning-Fog and Flesch-Kincaid indices and quality using IPDAS V.3 and V.4.
resultsA total of 25 unique decision aids were identified. On the PEMAT-P scale, the decision aids scored well on understandability (mean 87%) but not on actionability (mean 61%). Readability was also higher than recommended levels (mean Gunning-Fog index=10.1; suitable for grade 10 students). Four decision aids met criteria to be considered a decision aid (ie, met IPDAS qualifying criteria) and one sufficiently minimised major bias (ie, met IPDAS certification criteria).
conclusionsPublicly available CVD prevention decision aids are not suitable for low literacy populations and only one met international standards for certification. Given that patients with lower health literacy are at increased risk of CVD, this urgently needs to be addressed.
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.