ArticlePreventive medicine reports2022
The design and development of an encounter tool to support shared decision making about preventing cardiovascular events.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2022. 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.
- Article
- Champions and early adopters in an implementation-effectiveness study of shared decision making: implications for interpersonal strategies.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Encounter tool for Shared Decision Making about Adjuvant Treatment of Lung Cancer: Randomized Clinical Trial.Research square · 2026Article
- Association between Exposure to Statin Choice and Adherence to Statins: An Observational Cohort Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Observational
- Healthcare systems collaborating to implement a shared decision-making tool in the electronic health record and build evidence on its adoption and use.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Patient feedback receiving care using a shared decision making tool for thyroid nodule evaluation-an observational study.Endocrine · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) tend to receive less intensive preventive care. Clinical practice guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) to improve the quality of primary CVD prevention. There are tools for use during the clinical encounter that promote SDM, but, to our knowledge, there are no SDM encounter tools that support conversations about available lifestyle and pharmacological options that can lead to preventive care that is congruent with patient goals and CVD risk. Using the best available evidence and human-centered design (iterative design in the context of ultimate use with users), our team developed a SDM encounter tool, CV Prevention Choice. Each subsequent version during the iterative development process was evaluated in terms of content, usefulness, and usability by testing it in real preventive encounters. The final version of the tool includes a calculator that estimates the patient's risk of a major atherosclerotic CVD event in the next 10 years. Lifestyle and medication options are presented, alongside their pros, cons, costs, and other burdens. The risk reduction achieved by the selected prevention program is then displayed to support collaborative deliberation and decision making. A U.S. multicenter trial is estimating the effectiveness of CV Prevention Choice in achieving risk-concordant CV prevention while identifying the best strategies for increasing the adoption of the SDM encounter tool and its routine use in practice.
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.