ArticleBMJ open2019
Patients' and health professionals' attitudes and perceptions towards the initiation of preventive drugs for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Risk in Lithuania-Results from EUROASPIRE V Survey.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLipid-lowering drugs and antihypertensive agents can be prescribed for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. In some cases, patients eligible for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease according to the European guidelines are not always started on preventive drugs. Existing research explores the attitudes of health professionals and patients towards cardiovascular preventive drugs but does not always differentiate between the attitudes towards drug initiation for primary or secondary prevention. We aim to systematically review qualitative studies assessing health professionals' and patients' attitudes and perceptions towards drug initiation for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Science), Healthcare Management Information Consortium, and Open Grey will be searched without restrictions on date or language of publication. Searches will be limited to studies of qualitative design, standalone or in the context of a mixed-method design, focusing on cardiovascular drug initiation for primary prevention. The primary outcome is the attitudes of health professionals and patients towards drug initiation for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Two reviewers will independently carry out the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Research Checklist will be used to assess the quality of included studies. The findings will be analysed using Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review does not require ethical approval as primary data will not be collected. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018095346.
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.