ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Decision Support Tools for Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Do Not Meet Health Literacy Needs: A Systematic Environmental Scan and Evaluation.
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital Educational Strategies to Implement Evidence-Based Care for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2026Review
- Appropriateness of Web-Based Resources for Home Blood Pressure Measurement and Their Alignment With Guideline Recommendations, Readability, and End User Involvement: Environmental Scan of Web-Based Resources.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Assessing violence and injury prevention plans, strategies and indicators in eighteen Pacific Islands countries: an environmental scan.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A shared decision-making approach is considered optimal in primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Evidence-based patient decision aids can facilitate this but do not always meet patients' health literacy needs. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans are increasingly used in addition to traditional cardiovascular risk scores, but the availability of high-quality decision aids to support shared decision-making is unknown. We used an environmental scan methodology to review decision support for CAC scans and assess their suitability for patients with varying health literacy. We systematically searched for freely available web-based decision support tools that included information about CAC scans for primary CVD prevention and were aimed at the public. Eligible materials were independently evaluated using validated tools to assess qualification as a decision aid, understandability, actionability, and readability. We identified 13 eligible materials. Of those, only one qualified as a decision aid, and one item presented quantitative information about the potential harms of CAC scans. None presented quantitative information about both benefits and harms of CAC scans. Mean understandability was 68%, and actionability was 48%. Mean readability (12.8) was much higher than the recommended grade 8 level. Terms used for CAC scans were highly variable. Current materials available to people considering a CAC scan do not meet the criteria to enable informed decision-making, nor do they meet the health literacy needs of the general population. Clinical guidelines, including CAC scans for primary prevention, must be supported by best practice decision aids to support decision-making.
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.