Trial reportJAMA cardiology2018
Influence of Cardiovascular Risk Communication Tools and Presentation Formats on Patient Perceptions and Preferences.
Trial report in JAMA cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2024Pooled it
- Cardiovascular risk communication strategies in primary prevention. A systematic review with narrative synthesis.Journal of advanced nursing · 2022Pooled it
- Real-World Attainment of Guideline-Recommended Lipid Targets in Patients with High and Very High Cardiovascular Risk: A Prospective 12-Month Observational Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimates Using the New Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events Equations: Implications for Statin Use.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Risk of cardiovascular disease in Germany: results from GEDA 2022.Journal of health monitoring · 2025Article
- Codesigning a Digital Type 2 Diabetes Risk Communication Tool in Singapore: Qualitative Participatory Action Research Approach.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- The impact of perception bias for cardiovascular disease risk on physical activity and dietary habits.International journal of nursing sciences · 2024Article
- Risk estimation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: considerations for appropriate risk prediction model selection.The Lancet. Global health · 2024Review
- A parallel-arm randomised control trial to study the effects of risk communication methods for prevention of cardiovascular diseases: EFFRICO trial.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
- Health outcomes after myocardial infarction: A population study of 56 million people in England.PLoS medicine · 2024Article
- From risk communication about asymptomatic atherosclerosis to cognitive and emotional reactions and lifestyle modification.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Visualizing machine learning-based predictions of postpartum depression risk for lay audiences.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Effects of message framing and risk perception on health communication for optimum cardiovascular disease primary prevention: a protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- World Heart Federation Roadmap for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: 2023 Update.Global heart · 2024Article
- Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals on Clinician-Patient Communication of Cardiovascular Disease Risk.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Assessment of Lifetime Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: Time to Move Forward.Current cardiology reviews · 2024Review
- Closing the Gaps in Care of Dyslipidemia: Revolutionizing Management with Digital Health and Innovative Care Models.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Impact of outcome definitions on cardiovascular risk prediction in a contemporary primary prevention population.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2023Article
- Cardiovascular disease risk perception among community adults in South China: a latent profile analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Practice guidelines recommend that clinicians engage patients in treatment decisions and explain atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk but do not describe how to communicate this risk most effectively. Objective: To determine how the ASCVD risk time horizon, outcome, and presentation format influence risk perceptions and treatment preferences. Design, Setting, and Participants: From May 27, 2015, through November 12, 2015, participants from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry at 140 US cardiology, primary care, and endocrinology practices were presented 3 independent scenarios (representing the same hypothetical patient) and asked to rate their perceived risk and willingness to take medication to lower risk in light of (1) a 15% 10-year ASCVD event risk, (2) a 4% 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) death risk, and (3) a 50% lifetime ASCVD event risk. Exposures: Participants were randomized to receive risk estimates using numbers only, a bar graph, or a face pictogram. Results: Of 3566 eligible participants, 2708 (76.9%) responded (median age, 67 years [interquartile range, 61-76 years]; 280 [10.3%] African American; 1491 men [55.1%]). When shown the lifetime ASCVD risk, respondents were more likely to consider the risk "high to very high" than when presented the 10-year ASCVD risk or the CVD death risk (70.1% vs 31.4% vs 25.7%, respectively; both P < .001). Treatment willingness was also the highest for lifetime ASCVD risk (77.9% very willing) followed by 10-year ASCVD risk (68.1%) and 10-year CVD death risk (63.1%; both P < .001). Compared with participants who were shown a bar graph or no graphic, those who were shown the risk information with a pictogram had the lowest perception of disease severity and the lowest willingness to consider therapy. These findings were robust across demographic and socioeconomic subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: The format, time horizon, and outcome used for risk estimation influence patient perceptions and should be considered when designing risk communication tools. When shown lifetime risk estimates, patients had higher risk perception and willingness for therapy than when shown 10-year estimates. Pictogram risk displays may decrease risk perception and consideration for treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.