Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore research participants' (adults, age 50-65) perceptions of receiving cardiovascular risk information.

METHODS: Five focus group interviews (N = 31) were performed with research participants aged 50-65 who participated in the Swedish CArdioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS). The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS: The categories; the complexity of cardiovascular risk; insufficient presentation of test result; emotional responses; and health examinations provides confirmation, emerged. The test results were written in medical terms and lacked recommendations for further action which made it difficult for lay people to understand and use, and for some, also caused unnecessary worry.

CONCLUSION: There was inadequate guidance concerning the implications of the test results, especially for participants without clinical findings. In order to allow research participants to obtain better cognitive and behavioral control, improvements are needed with regard to how personal risk information is communicated in research projects connected to health services.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The participants largely relied on physical signs when assessing their own cardiovascular risk. Health examinations are crucial for helping to add nuance to individuals' risk perceptions. For personal health information to have any real value for individuals, it must be designed from a user perspective.

BACKGROUND: Understanding of how cardiovascular risk information influence individuals is critical for the practice of risk assessment and the management of patients with cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate change in mental distress among research participants after undergoing a cardiovascular risk assessment and receiving individual test results.

METHODS: In 2017, a questionnaire measuring mental distress after taking part in a risk assessment was distributed among 615 participants in the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Bio Image Study in Uppsala, Sweden, aged 50-64 years. Outcome measures were re-assessed after three months (30% were lost to follow-up).

RESULTS: There were no differences in outcomes after three months for participants with normal test results or for participants who were referred to primary health care. Mental distress increased in participants who were referred to the hospital, and were further explained by the fact that these participants were diagnosed with coronary artery stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS: CV risk information can be provided to individuals with lower levels of risk without concerns of inducing mental distress. However, in order to prevent unnecessary worry in contexts similar to this study, one should be prepared for different risk outcomes and plan for support for individuals with higher risk. The increased utility of powerful, yet not fully mature, imaging techniques requires careful considerations extending beyond medical risks and benefits; the clinician must also take into account the risk of mental distress and secure support when necessary.

Aims Underestimation of cardiovascular risk may interfere with prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). We investigate whether general health and family history of myocardial infarction (MI) are associated with underestimation of perceived cardiovascular risk, and if the participants' calculated risk modifies that association.

Methods and results The analysis sample consisted of 526 individuals, 50-64 years old, from a population-based cohort study. Information on general health (poor/fairly good, good, and very good/excellent), family history of MI, and self-perceived risk relative to others of similar age and sex were collected though a web-based survey. Participants were categorized into underestimation (n = 162, 31%), accurate estimation (n = 222, 42%), and overestimation (n = 142, 27%) of cardiovascular risk by comparing calculated Systematic Coronary Risk Estimation (SCORE) with self-perceived risk. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for underestimation vs. accurate estimation of cardiovascular risk were computed using logistic regression (n = 384). Very good general health (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.10-6.16) and lack of family history (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.24-4.18) were associated with underestimation of cardiovascular risk. The associations were modified by the participants' calculated risk level; the association was stronger for high-risk individuals; without family history OR 22.57 (95% CI 6.17-82.54); with very good/excellent health OR 15.78 (95% CI 3.73-66.87).

Conclusion A good general health and the lack of family CVD history can obscure the presence of other risk factors and lead to underestimation of cardiovascular risk, especially for high-risk individuals. It is, therefore, crucial to address the fact that the development of CV disease may be silent and multifactorial.

Background: Health checks can detect risk factors and initiate prevention of cardiovascular diseases but there is no consensus on how to communicate the results. The aim of this study was to investigate the preferences of the general population for communicating health check results.

Methods: A randomly selected sample of the Swedish population aged 40–70 years completed a discrete choice experiment survey that included questions on sociodemographics, lifestyle and health and 15 choice questions consisting of six attributes (written results, notification method, consultation time, waiting time, lifestyle recommendation and cost). Data were analyzed with a latent class analysis (LCA). Relative importance of the attributes and predicted uptake for several scenarios were estimated.

Results: In the analysis, 432 individuals were included (response rate 29.6%). A three-class LCA model best fit the data. Cost was the most important attribute in all classes. Preferences heterogeneity was found for the other attributes; in Class 1, receiving consultation time and the written results were important, respondents in Class 2 dominated on costs and respondents in Class 3 found consultation time, waiting time and lifestyle recommendations to be important. Health literate respondents were more likely to belong to Class 3. The predicted uptake rates ranged from 7 to 88% for different health checks with large differences across the classes.

Conclusions: Cost was most important when deciding whether to participate in a health check. Although cost was the most important factor, it is not sufficient to offer health checks free-of-charge if other requirements regarding how the test results are communicated are not in place; participants need to be able to understand their results.