Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34172476›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2021

Cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Checks: a qualitative video-stimulated recall interview study with practitioners.

Christopher J Gidlow, Naomi J Ellis, Victoria Riley, Lisa Cowap, Diane Crone, Elizabeth Cottrell, Sarah Grogan, Ruth Chambers, Sian Calvert, David Clark-Carter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Using social media for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research: The process and impact of a closed Facebook group.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

10 authors.

Christopher J GidlowCentre for Health and Development, School of Life Sciences and Education, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK C.Gidlow@staffs.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4990-4572
Naomi J EllisCentre for Health and Development, School of Life Sciences and Education, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Victoria RileyCentre for Health and Development, School of Life Sciences and Education, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Lisa CowapCentre for Health and Development, School of Life Sciences and Education, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Diane CroneCardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, UK.
Elizabeth CottrellSchool of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Sarah GroganDepartment of Psychology, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Ruth ChambersStoke-on-Trent Clinical Commissioning Group, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Sian CalvertCentre for Health and Development, School of Life Sciences and Education, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
David Clark-CarterCentre for Health and Development, School of Life Sciences and Education, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a national programme to identify and manage cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Practitioners delivering the programme should be competent in discussing CVD risk, but there is evidence of limited understanding of the recommended 10-year percentage CVD risk scores. Lifetime CVD risk calculators might improve understanding and communication of risk.

aimTo explore practitioner understanding, perceptions, and experiences of CVD risk communication in NHSHCs when using two different CVD risk calculators. DESIGN &

settingQualitative video-stimulated recall (VSR) study with NHSHC practitioners in the West Midlands.

methodVSR interviews were conducted with practitioners who delivered NHSHCs using either the QRISK2 10-year risk calculator (

resultsIn total, nine healthcare assistants (HCAs) and six general practice nurses (GPNs) were interviewed. There was limited understanding and confidence of 10-year risk, which was used to guide clinical decisions through determining low-, medium-, or high-risk thresholds, rather than as a risk communication tool. Potential benefits of some JBS3 functions were evident, particularly heart age, risk manipulation, and visual presentation of risk.

conclusionThere is a gap between the expectation and reality of practitioners' understanding, competencies, and training in CVD risk communication for NHSHCs. Practitioners would welcome heart age and risk manipulation functions of JBS3 to promote patient understanding of CVD risk, but there is a more fundamental need for practitioner training in CVD risk communication.

Indexed as

cardiovascular diseasespreventive medicineprimary health carequalitative researchrisk

Identifiers

PMID34172476
PMCPMC8596312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.