Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38310258›Full record

Trial reportBMC primary care2024

Patients' views on usefulness and effects of a risk communication tool for cardiovascular disease: a qualitative analysis.

Anders Elkær Jensen, Jens Søndergaard, Niels Kristian Kjær, Jesper Bo Nielsen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Anders Elkær JensenResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, Odense, 5230, Denmark. anejensen@health.sdu.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-9056-9326
Jens SøndergaardResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, Odense, 5230, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1629-1864
Niels Kristian KjærResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, Odense, 5230, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1301-2663
Jesper Bo NielsenResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, Odense, 5230, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5764-5462

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFailing to comprehend risk communication might contribute to poor treatment adherence. Using hypertension as a case, we investigated how a risk communication tool for patients with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease was perceived.

methodsAs part of a large project featuring a randomised controlled trial in a general practice setting in the Region of Southern Denmark, we conducted a semi-structured individual interview study. The study included patients with hypertension who had used an intervention comprising a visual and dynamic cardiovascular risk communication tool, along with receiving recurring emails providing advice on a healthy lifestyle. The analyses were based on Malterud's Systematic Text Condensation.

resultsThis article focuses solely on the results of the interview study, which comprised a total of 9 conducted and analysed interviews. The IT setup had a major impact on adherence to the intervention. A positive impact was found when the IT setup was perceived as easy to use and accessible, while a negative impact was noted when it malfunctioned. The intervention increased patients' self-reported insight into risk of cardiovascular disease. Patients reported the intervention and their risk of cardiovascular disease to become less important to them when they had more severe comorbidities. The involved health professional was very important for treatment adherence when communicating risk visually. Patients expressed trust in their general practitioners, and the general practitioners' attitudes toward the intervention affected patients' perceptions of its usefulness. While the informants reported an increased awareness of their risk of cardiovascular disease, none of them felt more concerned.

conclusionsPatients reported an increase in their perceived insight into the risk of cardiovascular disease but not an increased concern. Our findings align with previous studies emphasizing the importance of patients' motivation as well as risk perception for adherence. General practitioners have an important role when implementing new tools for patients.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersHypertensionCommunicationHumansCardiovascular diseaseFamily medicineGeneral practicePatient interviewPrimary sectorQualitativeRisk communicationVisual communication

Identifiers

PMID38310258
PMCPMC10837932

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.