ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
A parallel-arm randomised control trial to study the effects of risk communication methods for prevention of cardiovascular diseases: EFFRICO trial.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have many risk factors; few can be modified through health education. Traditional patient counselling methods fail to impact health behaviours to prevent or reduce the risk of CVDs. Objectives: This study was conducted to estimate the effect of various risk communication methods on CVD risk reduction and medication adherence. Design: An open-label superiority randomised control trial was conducted where 159 patients were randomised into three groups: Communication of 10-year Framingham CVD risk score, heart age, and routine care. Follow-up was done 3 months after recruitment. The primary outcome was a difference in excess 10-year Framingham CVD risk score in the end-line compared to baseline. The status of modifiable behavioural risk factors at baseline was expressed as 'yes' and 'no', and follow-up was defined as 'action', 'positive maintenance', 'negative maintenance', and 'defaulter'. The trial was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI NO. CTRI/2020/10/028614). Setting: The study setting was screening outpatient department (OPD), General Medicine OPD, and Cardiology OPD of a tertiary care hospital in Central India. Participants: Participants aged >30 years, residing in Bhopal for more than 6 months, diagnosed with hypertension or diabetes mellitus or both, and having any of the four CVD behavioural risk factors: tobacco use, alcohol use, physical inactivity, or unhealthy diet. Results: Median excess 10-year Framingham CVD risk scores were 0.945% (CI: 1.275-4.297), -0.850% (-3.932-2.075), and -1.300% (-5.100-0.900) (10-year Framingham CVD risk score vs Heart age vs Routine care) and 0.000% (-3.125-5.925), -1.600% (-3.760-1.475), and -1.400% (-6.600-5.900) before and after intervention, respectively ( Conclusion: Systematic risk communication methods reduced the probability of contracting CVD in the future, though this finding was statistically insignificant.
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.