ReviewInternational journal of public health2026
Bridging the implementation gap in cardiovascular prevention: a narrative review and call to action.
Review in International journal of public health, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, yet substantial gaps persist between evidence-based prevention strategies and their real-world implementation. This narrative review aimed to identify and synthesize contemporary models, programmes, and implementation strategies in preventive cardiovascular care, highlighting factors that facilitate or hinder adoption at scale. Methods: Narrative synthesis drawing on searches in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Library (to July 2025), prioritising systematic reviews, major guideline statements, and large multicentre studies. Results: Community programmes yield modest but meaningful reductions in blood pressure, lipids, and glucose. Clinical programmes achieve greater individual-level effects but are constrained by limited reach. Key barriers include misaligned incentives, workforce limitations, and persistent inequities. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) frameworks remain underutilised. Emerging digital tools and updated cardiovascular risk models offer new opportunities but require pragmatic integration. Conclusion: Strengthening preventive cardiovascular care requires aligning health-system incentives, integrating implementation science, and leveraging technology to support scalable and equitable prevention models.
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.