Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42043820›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2026

Heart Attack Education and EMS Response in High-Risk, Low EMS Usage Areas: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Trial.

Janet E Bray, Ziad Nehme, Judith C Finn, Jessica Kasza, Janelle Woods, Robyn A Clark, Dion Stub, Dominique A Cadilhac, Joosup Kim, Ben J Smith and 11 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04995900 (Heart Matters), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT04995900 nacompletednot on this map

Heart Matters: A Stepped-wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of Heart Health Education Targeting Communities at High Risk of Acute Coronary Syndrome.

TypeinterventionalSponsorMonash UniversityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled2,240ConditionsAcute Coronary Syndrome, Myocardial Infarction, AcuteArmsCommunity education
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

21 authors.

Janet E BraySchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Ziad NehmeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Judith C FinnSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Jessica KaszaSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Janelle WoodsSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Robyn A ClarkCaring Futures Institute, Flinders University, South Australia, Australia.
Dion StubSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Dominique A CadilhacStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Joosup KimStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Ben J SmithSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Susie CartledgeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Alison BeauchampSchool of Rural Health, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Rhys BowdenSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Natasha DodgeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Elizabeth Flemming-JudgeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Clara ChowUniversity of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nicholas CoxWestern Health, Victoria, Australia.
William van GaalDepartment of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Voltaire NadurataBendigo Health, Victoria, Australia.
Peter CameronSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Heart Matters Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Patient delays in recognizing and acting on acute coronary syndrome (ACS) symptoms worsen outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a heart attack education intervention (Heart Matters) aiming to improve recognition and response to ACS symptoms in communities with elevated cardiovascular risk and low emergency medical service (EMS) use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in 8 high-risk communities (local government areas; 4 metropolitan and 4 rural with a combined population of approximately 792 000 adult residents) in Victoria, Australia (December 2021 to March 2023 with follow-up to March 2024), with clusters crossing to the intervention every 4 months. Data were obtained from administrative datasets and registries (analysis complete June 2025). Intervention: A multicomponent community education program including 490 community sessions (approximately 10 088 residents), more than 174 110 households mailouts, more than 50 000 resource handouts, opportunistic media, and a geotargeted social-media campaign (reach of approximately 350 000 residents). The control period did not include any educational campaign. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ACS transported to hospitals by EMS, as recorded in the Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset. Outcomes were analyzed at the patient level using mixed-effects regression models, reporting risk differences (RDs) and odds ratios (ORs). A program evaluation was also conducted to assess implementation and inform potential replication and scale-up. Results: Among 1775 patients with ACS (865 intervention and 910 control; 924 [52.1%] aged ≥65 years; 1193 male [67.2%]), EMS use was unexpectedly high during the initial control period, coinciding with a COVID-19 wave. EMS transport occurred in 624 of 910 patients with ACS (68.6%) in the control period and 548 of 865 patients (63.4%) in the intervention period (adjusted RD, -8.98%; 95% CI, -17.50% to -0.46%; P = .04; adjusted OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.01; P = .05). Reductions were more pronounced in metropolitan areas (RD -10.73%; 95% CI -20.43% to -1.03%) and during a severe flooding event (RD -13.50%; 95% CI -26.52% to -0.47%). Early treatment-seeking was also lower, although estimates were imprecise. The program evaluation identified COVID-19 pandemic and seasonal impacts, as well as community concerns regarding EMS costs, demand, and wait times. Conclusions and Relevance: In this community ACS education trial conducted in high-risk regions, the intervention did not improve EMS use or prehospital care-seeking. External contextual factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters, appeared to influence patient behavior and may have attenuated intervention effects, highlighting the complexity of achieving behavioral change through community education alone. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04995900.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeEmergency Medical ServicesHealth EducationMyocardial InfarctionPatient Education as TopicAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedVictoria

Identifiers

PMID42043820
PMCPMC13122394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.