Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30898831›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Shared decision-making about cardiovascular disease medication in older people: a qualitative study of patient experiences in general practice.

Jesse Jansen, Shannon McKinn, Carissa Bonner, Danielle Marie Muscat, Jenny Doust, Kirsten McCaffery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Communication Processes Related to Decision-Making in Medication Management Between Healthcare Providers, Older People and Their Carers: A Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. GPs' perceptions of teaching methods in shared decision-making training: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Shared decision making in consultations for hypertension: Qualitative study in general practice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    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

6 authors.

Jesse JansenFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Shannon McKinnFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Carissa BonnerFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Danielle Marie MuscatFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jenny DoustFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Kirsten McCafferyFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore older people's perspectives and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) about medication for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsSemi-structured interviews with 30 general practice patients aged 75 years and older in New South Wales, Australia, who had elevated CVD risk factors (blood pressure, cholesterol)

resultsTwenty eight participants out of 30 were on CVD prevention medication, half with established CVD. We outlined patient experiences using the four steps of the SDM process, identifying key barriers and challenges: Step 1. Choice awareness: taking medication for CVD prevention was generally not recognised as a decision requiring patient input; Step 2. Discuss benefits/harms options: CVD prevention poorly understood with emphasis on benefits; Step 3. Explore preferences: goals, values and preferences (eg, length of life vs quality of life, reducing disease burden vs risk reduction) varied widely but generally not discussed with the general practitioner; Step 4. Making the decision: overall preference for directive approach, but some patients wanted more active involvement. Themes were similar across primary and secondary CVD prevention, different levels of self-reported health and people on and off medication.

conclusionsResults demonstrate how older participants vary widely in their health goals and preferences for treatment outcomes, suggesting that CVD prevention decisions are preference sensitive. Combined with the fact that the vast majority of participants were taking medications, and few understood the aims and potential benefits and harms of CVD prevention, it seems that older patients are not always making an informed decision. Our findings highlight potentially modifiable barriers to greater participation of older people in SDM about CVD prevention medication and prevention in general.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCardiovascular AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesClinical Decision-MakingFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleNew South WalesPatient ParticipationPrimary PreventionQualitative ResearchCardiovascular Agentscardiologypreventive medicineprimary carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID30898831
PMCPMC6475217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.