Increased knowledge makes a difference! – general practitioners’ experiences of pictorial information about subclinical atherosclerosis for primary prevention: an interview study from the VIPVIZA trial

References

• GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;385:117–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, et al. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet. 2004;364(9438):937–952.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Donnell MJ, Xavier D, Liu L, et al. Risk factors for ischaemic and intracerebral haemorrhagic stroke in 22 countries (the INTERSTROKE study): a case-control study. Lancet. 2010;376(9735):112–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenz MW, Polak JF, Kavousi M, et al. Carotid intima-media thickness progression to predict cardiovascular events in the general population (the PROG-IMT collaborative project): a meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet. 2012;379(9831):2053–2062.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters SA, den Ruijter HM, Bots ML, et al. Improvements in risk stratification for the occurrence of cardiovascular disease by imaging subclinical atherosclerosis: a systematic review. Heart. 2012;98(3):177–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards A, Elwyn G, Gwyn R. General practice registrar responses to the use of different risk communication tools in simulated consultations: a focus group study. BMJ. 1999;319(7212):749–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill S, Spink J, Cadilhac D, et al. Absolute risk representation in cardiovascular disease prevention: comprehension and preferences of health care consumers and general practitioners involved in a focus group study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldron CA, van der Weijden T, Ludt S, et al. What are effective strategies to communicate cardiovascular risk information to patients? A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(2):169–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanoli D, Lindqvist P, Wiklund U, et al. Fully automated on-screen carotid intima-media thickness measurement: a screening tool for subclinical atherosclerosis. J Clin Ultrasound. 2013;41(6):333–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naslund U, Ng N, Lundgren A, et al. Visualization of asymptomatic atherosclerotic disease for optimum cardiovascular prevention (VIPVIZA): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10167):133–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norberg M, Wall S, Boman K, et al. The Vasterbotten Intervention Programme: background, design and implications. Glob Health Action. 2010;3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nambi V, Chambless L, Folsom AR, et al. Carotid intima-media thickness and presence or absence of plaque improves prediction of coronary heart disease risk: the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(15):1600–1607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, et al. European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012): the Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Atherosclerosis. 2012;223(1):1–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piepoli MF, Hoes AW, Agewall S, et al. 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: the Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR). Eur Heart J. 2016;37(29):2315–2381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denissen SJ, van der Aalst CM, Vonder M, et al. Impact of a cardiovascular disease risk screening result on preventive behaviour in asymptomatic participants of the ROBINSCA trial. Eur J Prev Cardiolog. 2019;26(12):1313–1322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonnberg L, Damberg M, Revenas A. “It’s up to me”: the experience of patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease of lifestyle change. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2020;38(3):340–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(5):651–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengtsson U, Kjellgren K, Hallberg I, et al. Patient contributions during primary care consultations for hypertension after self-reporting via a mobile phone self-management support system. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2018;36(1):70–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montori VM, Gafni A, Charles C. A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Health Expect. 2006;9(1):25–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte K, Allen M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27(5):591–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696–713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):745–748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubloy A. Factors affecting the uptake of new medicines: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamoom EW, Patel V, Furukawa MF, et al. EHR adopters vs. non-adopters: impacts of, barriers to, and federal initiatives for EHR adoption. Healthc (Amst)). 2014;2(1):33–39.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sicotte C, Taylor L, Tamblyn R. Predicting the use of electronic prescribing among early adopters in primary care. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(7):e312–e321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers EM. Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addict Behav. 2002;27(6):989–993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlgren LE. Qualitative methodology for international public health. Umeå (Sweden): Umeå University; 2007.
   Google Scholar