Observational studyHigh blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension2026
Validation of Risk Perception Cut-Offs in Italian Brief PRHDS (PRHDS-BI): Implications for Primary Cardiovascular Prevention.
Observational study in High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06190743 (Perception of Cardiovascular Risk), which is not on this 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.
Perception of Cardiovascular Risk: Description of the Phenomenon in Primary Prevention
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEffective cardiovascular (CV) prevention requires accurate risk estimation and patient engagement, which depends on perceived risk. The Perception of Risk of Heart Disease Scale (PRHDS) is a validated tool, yet clinical thresholds for its brief Italian version are lacking.
aimTo provide further validation of the Brief Italian version of the PRHDS (PRHDS-BI) in a new cohort, examining convergent and divergent validity, and to establish clinical thresholds and a discrepancy index comparing perceived risk with objective estimates.
methods285 adults (40-69 years) were involved in this multicentre cross-sectional study (NCT06190743). Participants were without a history of CV disease and completed the PRHDS-BI and the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). CV real risk was estimated using the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), correlation analyses, and cut-off definitions were used to validate the scale and analyze risk discrepancies.
resultsThe PRHDS-BI showed good internal consistency and strong convergent validity. Clinical thresholds were defined by percentiles: scores 6-12 (low/moderate), 13-17 (high), and 18-24 (very high). A significant mismatch emerged: 63.5% of participants at low/moderate actual risk overestimated their risk, while 80% at very high actual risk underestimated it. This perception-reality gap was statistically confirmed.
conclusionsThe PRHDS-BI is a valid tool for assessing CV risk perception. Establishing thresholds allows for tailored risk communication and patient-centered interventions, particularly by nursing professionals in primary prevention settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41998465What 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.