ArticleBMJ open2024
Risk and time preferences in individuals with lifestyle-related and non-lifestyle-related cardiovascular diseases: a pilot study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intertemporal Decision-Making Ability in Patients with Chronic Diseases: A Concept Analysis.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo (1) pilot a study of behavioural characterisation based on risk and time preferences in clinically well-characterised individuals, (2) assess the distribution of preferences in this population and (3) explore differences in preferences between individuals with 'lifestyle-related' (LS) and 'non-lifestyle-related' (NLS) cardiovascular diseases.
designCross-sectional study with an economic online experiment to collect risk and time preferences, a detailed clinical characterisation and a sociodemographic and lifestyle survey. A definition of LS and NLS groups was developed.
settingSpecialist outpatient clinics of the clinic for cardiology and pneumology of the University Hospital Düsseldorf and patients from a cardiology practice in Düsseldorf.
participantsA total of 74 individuals with cardiovascular diseases. OUTCOMES: Risk and time preferences.
resultsThe implementation of the study process, including participant recruitment and data collection, ran smoothly. The medical checklist, the survey and the time preference instrument were well received. However, the conceptual understanding of the risk preference instrument resulted in inconsistent choices for many participants (47%). The remaining individuals were more risk averse (27%) than risk seeking (16%) and risk neutral (10%). Individuals in our sample were also more impatient (49%) than patient (42%). The participant classification showed that 65% belonged to the LS group, 19% to the NLS group and 16% could not be assigned (unclear allocation to lifestyle (ULS) group). Excluding the ULS group, we show that individuals in the LS group were more risk seeking, and unexpectedly, more patient than those in the NLS group.
conclusionsThe process of the pilot study and its results can be used as a basis for the design of the main study. The differences in risk and time preferences between the LS and NLS groups provide us with a novel hypothesis for unhealthy behaviours: individuals never give up a bad habit, they simply postpone the latter, which can be tested alongside other additional research questions.
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.