ArticleNursing open2026
Primary Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives on Cardiovascular Risk Communication to Persons With Type 2 Diabetes: A Grounded Theory Study.
Article in Nursing 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo explore how cardiovascular risk communication is constructed, negotiated and enacted in practice to persons with type 2 diabetes.
designQualitative.
methodsIndividual interviews were conducted with 14 HCPs in primary care. Data were analysed using the constructivist grounded theory method.
resultsThe core category, 'Striving to enhance cardiovascular risk awareness in persons with type 2 diabetes while balancing responsibility and uncertainty', captures the challenges in making CVD risk understandable and meaningful for patients. Four categories describe the HCPs' work: Navigating a complex assessment of cardiovascular risk, struggling to communicate cardiovascular risk in a pedagogical way, trying to build a trusting relationship and simultaneously highlighting the disease severity, and experiencing loneliness and requesting organisational changes.
conclusionsHealthcare professionals (HCPs) recognised their significant responsibility for cardiovascular risk communication, but simultaneously experienced uncertainty about how to assess patients' individual CVD risk. Diabetes specialist nurses described feelings of professional isolation, limited medical support from physicians and a lack of shared responsibility within the diabetes care team. HCPs also requested sufficient organisational resources. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Communicating cardiovascular risk remains difficult. Strengthening the role of HCPs in risk communication and ensuring they adopt a more person-centred approach are essential to improving risk communication in primary healthcare. IMPACT: To assess cardiovascular risk and reveal patients' understanding, HCPs must go beyond education, build trust and understanding, and balance encouragement with demands. REPORTING
methodCOREQ checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.