Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31481364›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2019

Improving cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Checks: a qualitative study.

Meredith K D Hawking, Adam Timmis, Fae Wilkins, Jessica L Potter, John Robson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02486913 (Enhancing the Diagnosis and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Newham by Integrated Use of Electronic Health Records), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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.

NCT02486913 nacompletednot on this map

Enhancing the Diagnosis and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Newham by Integrated Use of Electronic Health Records

TypeinterventionalSponsorQueen Mary University of LondonRan2015 to 2018Enrolled190ConditionsCardiovascular DiseaseArmsEnhanced Health Check
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. NHS Health Checks: an observational study of equity and outcomes 2009-2017.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Meredith K D HawkingCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1519-2458
Adam TimmisNIHR Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, Barts Heart Centre, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1419-112X
Fae WilkinsCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Jessica L PotterCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6763-4425
John RobsonCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK j.robson@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6889-0415

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M014517/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe NHS Health Check programme is a public screening and prevention initiative in England to detect early signs of cardiovascular ill health among healthy adults. We aimed to explore patient perspectives and experiences of a personalised Risk Report designed to improve cardiovascular risk communication in the NHS Health Check. DESIGN AND

settingThis is a qualitative study with NHS Health Check attendees in three general practices in the London Borough of Newham. INTERVENTION AND

participantsA personalised Risk Report for the NHS Health Check was developed to improve communication of results and advice. The Risk Report was embedded in the electronic health record, printed with auto-filled results and used as a discussion aid during the NHS Health Check, and was a take-home record of information and advice on risk reduction for the attendees. 18 purposively sampled socially diverse participants took part in semistructured interviews, which were analysed thematically.

resultsFor most participants, the NHS Health Check was an opportunity for reassurance and assessment, and the Risk Report was an enduring record that supported risk understanding, with impact beyond the individual. For a minority, ambivalence towards the Risk Report occurred in the context of attending for other reasons, and risk and lifestyle advice were not internalised or acted on.

conclusionOur findings demonstrate the potential of a personalised Risk Report as a useful intervention in NHS Health Checks for enhancing patient understanding of cardiovascular risk and strategies for risk reduction. Also highlighted are the challenges that must be overcome to ensure transferability of these benefits to diverse patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02486913.

Indexed as

Program EvaluationQualitative ResearchAdultCardiovascular DiseasesEnglandFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedMorbidityPreventive Health ServicesRisk Assessmentcommunicationinformation technologypreventive medicineprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID31481364
PMCPMC6731822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.