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 .
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
OBJECTIVE To systematic ally 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 .
Patient knowledge of coronary risk profile improves the effectiveness of dyslipidemia therapy: the CHECK-UP study: a randomized controlled trial.
BACKGROUND Despite increasing evidence that treating dyslipidemia reduces cardiovascular events , many patients do not achieve recommended lipid targets . METHODS To determine whether showing physicians and patients the patient 's calculated coronary risk can improve the effectiveness of treating dyslipidemia in a primary care setting , patients were  r and omized  to receive usual care or ongoing feedback regarding their calculated coronary risk and the change in this risk after lifestyle changes , pharmacotherapy , or both to treat dyslipidemia . Outcomes , based on intention-to-treat analysis , included changes in blood lipid levels , coronary risk , and the frequency of reaching lipid targets . RESULTS Two hundred thirty primary care physicians enrolled 3,053 patients . After 12 months of follow-up , 2,687 patients ( 88.0 % ) remained in the study . After adjustment for baseline lipid values , significantly greater mean reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio were observed in patients receiving risk profiles ( 51.2 mg/dL [ to convert to millimoles per liter , multiply by 0.0259 ] and 1.5 , respectively ) vs usual care ( 48.0 mg/dL and 1.3 , respectively ) , but the differences were small ( -3.3 mg/dL ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , -5.4 to -1.1 mg/dL ; and -0.1 ; 95 % CI , -0.2 to -0.1 , respectively ) . Patients in the risk profile group were also more likely to reach lipid targets ( odds ratio , 1.26 ; 95 % CI , 1.07 to 1.48 ) . A significant dose-response effect was also noted when the impact of the risk profile was stronger in those with worse profiles . CONCLUSIONS Discussing coronary risk with the patient is associated with a small but measurable improvement in the efficacy of lipid therapy . The value of incorporating risk assessment in preventive care should be further evaluated
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 .
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
OBJECTIVE To systematic ally 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 .