ArticleCJC open2026
Appraising the Quality of Patient Decision Aids for Brain and Heart Health: An Environmental Scan with a Health Equity Lens.
Article in CJC open, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: New brain-heart clinical practice guidelines recommend provision of patient decision aids (PtDAs) to support people with or at risk of brain and heart conditions. We aimed to identify and appraise the quality of PtDAs addressing brain-heart conditions and their consideration of health equity. Methods: We conducted an online environmental scan to identify publicly available PtDAs. Two reviewers independently searched, extracted data, and appraised their quality using International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) criteria, the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), and the PROGRESS-Plus framework for health equity. Results: Of 2549 resources identified, 51 PtDAs were eligible. Nine addressed a combined brain-heart decision, 36 addressed primarily cardiovascular conditions with brain implications, and 6 addressed primarily brain conditions with heart implications. Few focused on brain-heart conditions concomitantly. None addressed dementia, and only one addressed depression as a primary condition with cardiovascular risk addressed as a secondary consideration. The mean IPDAS essential criteria score was 5.8 of 7 (SD 1.5, range 1-7). For PEMAT-P (for printable materials), 91% PtDAs achieved an adequate understandability rating (≥ 70%), and 56% achieved an adequate actionability rating (≥ 70%). The most frequently reported PROGRESS-Plus healthy equity items were age (80%), gender/sex (45%), and socioeconomic status (39%). Conclusions: Brain-heart guidelines recommend PtDA use, but our environmental scan highlighted the need for more of these important interventions. Few PtDAs focused on brain and heart conditions concomitantly, none addressed dementia, and only one addressed depression, which frequently coexist with cardiac conditions. PtDAs also lacked actionable guidance within an equity-informed framework to support quality decisions and decision-making processes for all.
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.