ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
Patient Treatment Preferences for Heart Failure Medications: A Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Perspectives on Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) Treatment Attributes.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Article
- Application of Nudges to Design Clinical Decision Support Tools: Systematic Approach Guided by Implementation Science.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Heart failure patients' perspectives on treatment outcomes and unmet medical needs: A qualitative preference study.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Advancing Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Heart Failure: Overcoming Challenges and Maximizing Benefits.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2024Review
- Heart Failure Management in 2023: A Pharmacotherapy- and Lifestyle-Focused Comparison of Current International Guidelines.CJC open · 2023Review
- Decisional Needs and Patient Treatment Preferences for Heart Failure Medications: A Scoping Review.CJC open · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionConsideration of patient preferences for guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may help improve major gaps in prescribing and adherence. This study aimed to identify the range and relative priority of factors influencing patients' decisions to take HFrEF medications. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a convergent mixed methods study of patients with HFrEF. Focus groups were conducted to identify a list of factors followed by individuals rating and ranking the influence of each factor on their decision to take a medication. Using thematic analysis, we summarized preferences into categories.
resultsTwo focus groups with 13 participants reported 22 factors. Of the factors, "keeping you alive" was most commonly ranked in the top three (seven participants), followed by "communication and understanding" (six participants). Factors were summarized into six categories (listed in order of patient-reported influence): 1) demonstrated improvements in quality of life and longevity, 2) decreased risk of hospitalization, 3) opportunity for shared decision-making and trust in provider, 4) absence of adverse events, 5) affordability, and 6) convenience of taking and absence of interference with daily life.
conclusionPatients prioritize treatment benefits and being informed more than risks, cost and inconvenience of taking HFrEF medications.
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.