ArticleDigital health
Online health information behaviour and its association with statin adherence in patients with high cardiovascular risk: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying and profiling authoritative cardiology-related key opinion leaders on Xiaohongshu: a social media-based study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Misinformation on cardiovascular disease spreads through social networks: a scoping review.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Addressing adherence challenges in long-term statin treatment among Asian populations: Current gaps and proposed solutions.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Understanding Medication Self-Management at Home Among Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Overcoming clinical inertia to improve the use of cardiovascular risk reducing therapy: A Fellow's Voice.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Statins are effective for preventing cardiovascular disease. However, many patients decide not to take statins because of negative influences, such as online misinformation. Online health information may affect decisions on medication adherence, but measuring it is challenging. This study aimed to examine the associations between online health information behaviour and statin adherence in patients with high cardiovascular risk. Methods: A prospective cohort study involving 233 patients with high cardiovascular risk was conducted at a primary care clinic in Malaysia. Participants used a digital information diary tool to record online health information they encountered for 2 months and completed a questionnaire about statin necessity, concerns and adherence at the end of the observation period. Data were analysed using structural equation modelling. Results: The results showed that 55.8% (130 of 233 patients) encountered online health information. Patients who actively sought online health information (91 of 233 patients) had higher concerns about statin use ( Conclusions: Our results suggest that patients with higher levels of concern about statins may be actively seeking online information about statins, and their concerns might influence how they search, what they find, and the potential to encounter misinformation. Our study highlights the importance of addressing patients' concerns about medications to improve adherence.
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.