ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2026
Factors associated with patient preferences for statin therapy in primary prevention.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The smallest worthwhile difference (SWD) - the minimum absolute benefit required to justify a treatment against its burdens - varies by personal preference. We investigated factors associated with SWD variation for statin therapy in primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to inform shared decision-making strategies. Methods: This pre-planned secondary analysis used survey data from the US (n = 602) and Japan (n = 665). Participants determined their SWD for statins across three 10-year ASCVD risk scenarios (2%, 10%, 20%) using the Benefit-Harm Trade-off Method. Subgroup analyses compared SWD by statin use history, self-perceived baseline risk, and hypercholesterolemia diagnosis. Associations between participant characteristics and SWD were examined using proportional odds regression adjusted for age and sex. A post hoc analysis using a directed acyclic graph explored the causal role of prior cholesterol education. Results: The median SWD exceeded the benefits typically provided by statins across all scenarios. Predictors of lower SWDs (greater willingness to initiate statins) were mostly consistent across countries. Higher self-perceived ASCVD risk was associated with lower SWD: in the moderate-risk scenario, median SWDs decreased from 7.5-10.0% to 2.5-5.0% as self-perceived risk increased. Current statin use, hypercholesterolemia history, and cardiovascular comorbidities were each associated with lower SWDs. After adjusting for confounders, prior cholesterol education was associated with 38% (US) and 47% (Japan) lower odds of selecting a higher SWD (OR 0.62 [95%CI 0.42-0.90] and 0.53 [0.31-0.90], respectively), indicating lower treatment efficacy expectations. Conclusions: Risk perception and understanding of treatment benefits may predict statin acceptance. Educational interventions strengthening treatment-specific knowledge may represent a promising strategy to align patient preferences with clinical evidence.
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.