ArticleBMJ open2026
Patient acceptability and preferences for communication of coronary artery calcification findings in the NHS targeted lung health checks: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore how participants in the UK's Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme understand and respond to incidental findings of coronary artery calcification (CAC) and to identify patient preferences for communication that might enhance engagement with cardiovascular prevention such as lipid-lowering therapy (LLT).
designQualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis.
settingOne general practice participating in the National Health Service TLHC programme in North-East England, an area of high social deprivation.
participantsTen adults aged 59-71 years with CAC detected on TLHC CT scans and a calculated QRISK >10%. PRIMARY OUTCOME: To explore patient understanding of incidental CAC findings and how this influences engagement with cardiovascular prevention. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: To identify patient preferences for receiving and discussing CAC results, including preferred communication methods, terminology and the role of the clinician in shaping preventive treatment decisions.
resultsPatients initially reported understanding their findings but deeper exploration revealed misconceptions about personal cardiovascular disease risk. A lack of trust in doctors and reliance on non-clinical information sources (social media, family and friends) were barriers to LLT uptake. Trust in the medical professional giving the advice also shaped acceptance of LLT.
conclusionEnhancing patient education on CAC findings, fostering doctor-patient trust and tailoring communication strategies may improve LLT uptake. Personalised follow-up and clearer risk explanations could reduce hesitancy and improve engagement with preventive care.
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.