Evidence mapPaperPMID 35719002Full record

SynthesisJournal of advanced nursing2022

Cardiovascular risk communication strategies in primary prevention. A systematic review with narrative synthesis.

Stacey D Schulberg, Amy V Ferry, Kai Jin, Lucy Marshall, Lis Neubeck, Fiona E Strachan, Nicholas L Mills

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of advanced nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Stacey D SchulbergBHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6311-2411
Amy V FerryBHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Kai JinUsher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lucy MarshallCritical Care Research Group, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Lis NeubeckSchool of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.
Fiona E StrachanBHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Nicholas L MillsBHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/F/21/90010British Heart Foundation FS/RTF/21/30028British Heart Foundation RE/18/5/34216British Heart Foundation RG/20/10/34966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the effectiveness of cardiovascular risk communication strategies to improve understanding and promote risk factor modification.

designSystematic review with narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive database search for quantitative and qualitative studies was conducted in five databases, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied health Literature (CINAHL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) and Web of Science. The searches were conducted between 1980 and July 2019. REVIEW

methodsThe systematic review was conducted in accordance with Cochrane review methods. Data were extracted and a narrative synthesis of quantitative and qualitative results was undertaken.

resultsThe abstracts of 16,613 articles were assessed and 210 underwent in-depth review, with 31 fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We observed significant heterogeneity across study designs and outcomes. Nine communication strategies were identified including numerical formats, graphical formats, qualitative information, infographics, avatars, game interactions, timeframes, genetic risk scores and cardiovascular imaging. Strategies that used cardiovascular imaging had the biggest impact on health behaviour change and risk factor modification. Improvements were seen in diet, exercise, smoking, risk scores, cholesterol and intentions to take preventive medication.

conclusionA wide range of cardiovascular risk communication strategies has been evaluated, with those that employ personalized and visual evidence of current cardiovascular health status more likely to promote action to reduce risk. IMPACT: Future risk communication strategies should incorporate methods to provide individuals with evidence of their current cardiovascular health status.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesCommunicationHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansPrimary PreventionRisk Factorscardiovascular diseasescommunicationheart disease risk factorsliterature reviewnursingprimary preventionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35719002
PMCPMC9546276

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.