↓ Skip to main content

Impact of provision of cardiovascular disease risk estimates to healthcare professionals and patients: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of provision of cardiovascular disease risk estimates to healthcare professionals and patients: a systematic review
Published in
BMJ Open, October 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008717
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliet A Usher-Smith, Barbora Silarova, Ewoud Schuit, Karel GM Moons, Simon J Griffin

Abstract

To systematically review whether the provision of information on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to healthcare professionals and patients impacts their decision-making, behaviour and ultimately patient health. A systematic review. An electronic literature search of MEDLINE and PubMed from 01/01/2004 to 01/06/2013 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of systematic reviews on similar topics and all included papers. (1) Primary research published in a peer-reviewed journal; (2) inclusion of participants with no history of CVD; (3) intervention strategy consisted of provision of a CVD risk model estimate to either professionals or patients; and (4) the only difference between the intervention group and control group (or the only intervention in the case of before-after studies) was the provision of a CVD risk model estimate. After duplicates were removed, the initial electronic search identified 9671 papers. We screened 196 papers at title and abstract level and included 17 studies. The heterogeneity of the studies limited the analysis, but together they showed that provision of risk information to patients improved the accuracy of risk perception without decreasing quality of life or increasing anxiety, but had little effect on lifestyle. Providing risk information to physicians increased prescribing of lipid-lowering and blood pressure medication, with greatest effects in those with CVD risk >20% (relative risk for change in prescribing 2.13 (1.02 to 4.63) and 2.38 (1.11 to 5.10) respectively). Overall, there was a trend towards reductions in cholesterol and blood pressure and a statistically significant reduction in modelled CVD risk (-0.39% (-0.71 to -0.07)) after, on average, 12 months. There seems evidence that providing CVD risk model estimates to professionals and patients improves perceived CVD risk and medical prescribing, with little evidence of harm on psychological well-being.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Psychology 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 14 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,195,441
of 13,993,414 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#2,729
of 12,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,965
of 283,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#79
of 354 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,993,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 354 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.