Cardiovascular RiskSDM4IPNCT04450914
Implementing Shared Decision Making (SDM) For Individualized CV Prevention (SDM4IP)
A study testing CV Prevention Choice Tool and Implementation Facilitation Strategies in people with Cardiovascular Risk and Cardiovascular Prevention, run by Mayo Clinic at 4 sites in United States.
Trial summary
Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the #1 cause of premature mortality and substantial morbidity in the U.S. Despite clinical guidelines, most clinical interventions are implemented in people at relatively lower CV risk, and few among people at the highest risk. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 40 to 75 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Cardiovascular Risk, Cardiovascular Prevention
- What is being tested?
- CV Prevention Choice Tool and Implementation Facilitation Strategies
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 112,127 participants
- Where
- 4 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 10 May 2021to 29 Apr 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 40 to 75 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Clinician Participants: All clinicians who are affiliated with a participating primary care practice and care for adult patients eligible for CV prevention will be invited to participate.
- Patient Participants: Adult patients (ages 40-75 years) with or without diabetes who have not experienced an atherothrombotic clinical event and receive preventive care at a participating primary care practice will be eligible to participate.
Who cannot join
- Individuals who do not speak English or have any sort of cognitive deficit that would impact their ability to consent to participate in the study will not be invited to participate.
Trial locations and contacts
4 sites in 1 country.
United States4 sites
VHC Health
Arlington, Virginia, 22205
Altru Health System
Grand Forks, North Dakota, 58201
Wellstar Health System
Marietta, Georgia, 30060
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minnesota, 55905
About this study
Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the #1 cause of premature mortality and substantial morbidity in the U.S. Despite clinical guidelines, most clinical interventions are implemented in people at relatively lower CV risk, and few among people at the highest risk. Shared decision making (SDM) can mitigate the risk-treatment paradox by reducing risk blindness and lack of fit of the preventive regimen, but the adoption of SDM in routine clinical care is incomplete. This study addresses SDM adoption of a CV prevention SDM tool in three health systems.
Read the detailed description
The primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events is often more intense in individuals at lower risk and vice versa (the so called "risk-treatment paradox") in part due to unawareness of each person's CV risk, of their preferences for prevention interventions, and of their feasibility in each person's daily life. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that clinicians and patients work together to arrive at an effective and feasible prevention plan that is congruent with each person's CV risk and informed preferences, a process called shared decision making (SDM). Despite the availability of an innovative and effective tool that estimates CV risk, shows the impact and features of available lifestyle and pharmacological preventive interventions, and thus can facilitate CV treatment discussions between clinicians and patients, this type of SDM does not routinely happen in practice.
The challenge therefore is to identify strategies to increase adoption of this type of SDM in real-world clinical practices. This 4-year study - proposed by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in preventive cardiology, SDM, and implementation science - aims to integrate an SDM tool (the CV Prevention Choice tool) in the primary care practices of three diverse health care systems in the U.S. and study both the tool and tailored strategies that foster its adoption and routine use. The study will use a mixed method, hybrid implementation-effectiveness (Type III) step-wedge clustered randomized trial design to determine:
- Implementation effectiveness (Aim 1) by evaluating the settings (including local workflow and policies) in which the CV Prevention Choice tool is implemented and the engagement of users in implementation strategies; implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, adoption) associated with these strategies; and how implementation fosters routine adoption of SDM and the CV Prevention Choice tool in primary care practices, and
- SDM effectiveness (Aim 2) estimated by the extent to which individual CV prevention plans are feasible and congruent with each person's estimated CV risk and preferences.
The investigators hypothesize that efforts to assess local needs and use them to develop tailored implementation approaches will foster greater adoption of SDM in practice. They further hypothesize that individual preventive care plans will be congruent with estimated risk when clinicians adopt the SDM tool. The broad goal is to promote patient-centered care that effectively reduces the substantial burden of CV disease among Americans. By the project's end, the investigators expect to have (a) identified the most effective implementation strategies to embed SDM in routine practice and (b) estimated the effectiveness of SDM to achieve feasible and risk-concordant CV prevention in primary care.
- Conditions
- Cardiovascular Risk, Cardiovascular Prevention
- Being tested
- CV Prevention Choice Tool, Implementation Facilitation Strategies
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
CV Prevention Choice ToolBehavioural
The CV Prevention Choice SDM tool is a shared decision making intervention. It is embedded in the electronic health record and uses EHR data to estimate and display cardiovascular risk for individual patients and then foster conversations between clinicians and patients about available options for preventive care based on individual risk and preferences.
Implementation Facilitation StrategiesBehavioural
During the active implementation stage, health systems will deploy tailored implementation facilitation and other tailored implementation strategies aimed at increasing adoption and use of shared decision making using CV Prevention Choice.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Sequence 1 | Other | Sequence 1 began usual care (Step 1) on 9/24/2021, entered the active implementation period (Step 2) on 3/24/2022, and entered the maintenance period (Step 3) on 4/1/2024. In usual care, clinicans had access to CV Prevention Choice in their electronic health record but there were no other active implementation strategies deployed (passive implementation). The active implementation period included deployment of tailored implementaiton strategies. In the maintenance period, active implementation support ended but clinicians still had access to CV Prevention Choice in the EHR Receives: Behavioral: CV Prevention Choice Tool |
| Sequence 2 | Other | Sequence 2 began usual care (Step 1) on 4/13/2022, entered the active implementation period (Step 2) on 10/14/2022, and entered the maintenance period (Step 3) on 4/1/2024. In usual care, clinicans had access to CV Prevention Choice in their electronic health record but there were no other active implementation strategies deployed (passive implementation). The active implementation period included deployment of tailored implementaiton strategies. In the maintenance period, active implementation support ended but clinicians still had access to CV Prevention Choice in the EHR. Receives: Behavioral: CV Prevention Choice Tool; Behavioral: Implementation Facilitation Strategies |
| Sequence 3 | Other | Sequence 3 began usual care (Step 1) on 6/13/2022, entered the active implementation period (Step 2) on 12/13/2022, and entered the maintenance period (Step 3) on 4/1/2024. In usual care, clinicans had access to CV Prevention Choice in their electronic health record but there were no other active implementation strategies deployed (passive implementation). The active implementation period included deployment of tailored implementaiton strategies. In the maintenance period, active implementation support ended but clinicians still had access to CV Prevention Choice in the EHR. Receives: Behavioral: CV Prevention Choice Tool |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Reach (RE-AIM): The Percentage of Clinicians Who Ever Used CV Prevention Choice
Percentage of clinicians who used CV Prevention Choice, among all eligible clinicians in participating settings. Clinicians were eligible if they had at least one encounter during the period evaluated. Utilization was recorded in the electronic health record. Higher percentages indicate greater intervention reach.
Measured: Approximately 3.5 years
Effectiveness (RE-AIM): Clinician Perceptions of CV Prevention Choice Effectiveness
Perceptions of CV Prevention Choice effectiveness, including whether it helps support shared decision making conversations, as assessed through interviews with eligible clinicians. Participant counts reflect the number of interview participants in the arm/group who indicated CV Prevention Choice supports shared decision making, does not support shared decision making, or were unsure whether it supported shared decision making.
Measured: Approximately 3.5 years
Adoption (RE-AIM): The Percentage of Clinicians Who Adopted CV Prevention Choice in Routine Care
Percentage of eligible clinicians that used CV Prevention Choice in encounters identified in the electronic health record as a visit for preventive care (visit reason listed as annual exam or annual wellness visit), among all eligible preventive care encounters. Utilization was recorded in the electronic health record. Higher percentages indicate greater adoption.
Measured: Approximately 3.5 years
Adoption (RE-AIM): Clinician Perceptions of CV Prevention Choice Adoption
Perceptions of CV Prevention Choice adoption, including reasons for adopting it or failing to adopt it in routine care, as assessed through interviews with eligible clinicians. Participant counts reflect the number of interview participants in the arm/group who gave reasons for adopting or not adopting CV Prevention Choice.
Measured: Approximately 3.5 years
Implementation (RE-AIM): Observer Scoring of Clinician Fidelity to Shared Decision Making Behaviors in Audio-video Recorded Encounters
A sample of clinical encounters were audio-video recorded, reviewed by trained study staff, and scored using a fidelity checklist with 10 items indicating shared decision making behaviors. Each item was scored on a on a scale from -1=Behavior was undermined by comment or action to 4=The behavior is exhibited to a very high standard. An overall average score ranging from -1 to 4 was created by averaging the 10 item scores. A higher mean score indicates greater fidelity to the core components of shared decision making.
Measured: Approximately 1 year
Implementation (RE-AIM): Average Patient-reported Rating of the Quality of Shared Decision Making After a Clinical Encounter
The quality of shared decision making was assessed using the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), which is a patient self-report measure designed to measure the extent and quality of shared decision making in a clinical encounter from the patient perspective. The nine items are scored on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 6 (Completely Agree). Scores are summed and transformed to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating greater perceived involvement in decision-making.
Measured: Approximately 1 year
Implementation (RE-AIM): Average Patient-reported Quality of Care After a Clinical Encounter
The quality of care was assessed using the 10-item Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure, which is a patient-reported measure of the experience of care in a clinical encounter. Higher scores are indicative of higher patient reported relational empathy in the consultation. Items are scored from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) and summed for a range of scores from 10 to 50. Higher scores indicate more positive assessment of care processes.
Measured: Approximately 1 year
Maintenance (RE-AIM): The Percentage of Clinicians Using CV Prevention Choice at the End of the Maintenance Period Compared to the Beginning of the Period
The percentage of clinicians using CV Prevention Choice, as indicated in the electronic health record, at the transition to the maintenance period was compared to the percentage in the last two months of the maintenance phase. Equivalent or higher percentage use at the end of the maintenance stage indicates maintenance of the tool as part of routine practice.
Measured: Approximately 1 year
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of How CV Prevention Choice Differs From Usual Ways of Working
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "I can see how it differs from usual ways of working" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Measured: Approximately 3 years
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Whether CV Prevention Choice Has Potential Value for Their Work
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "I can see the potential value of it for my own work" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Measured: Approximately 3 years
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Whether There Are Key People to Drive CV Prevention Choice Forward and Get Others Involved
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "There are key people who drive it forward and get others involved" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Measured: Approximately 3 years
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Whether CV Prevention Choice Can be Easily Integrated Into Existing Work
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "I can easily integrate it into my existing work" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Measured: Approximately 3 years
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Whether Sufficient Training Was Provided to Implement CV Prevention Choice
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "Sufficient training is provided to enable staff to implement it" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Measured: Approximately 3 years
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Management Support for CV Prevention Choice
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "Management adequately supports it" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Measured: Approximately 3 years
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Whether Staff Agree CV Prevention Choice is Worthwhile
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "The staff agree that it is worthwhile" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Measured: Approximately 3 years
Secondary outcomes (1)
Effectiveness: The Predicted Marginal Probability of Statin Use is Concordant With Estimated Cardiovascular Risk
Patient risk-concordance was assessed using all of the patient's encounter level data. Statin prescription status was captured in the EHR up to 30 days after the encounter (i.e., the patient-clinician clinical visit) and their estimated 10-year risk of developing a first atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) event, calculated using the Pooled Cohort Equation and data from the EHR including: age, race, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, diabetes status, and whether the individual is receiving treatment for high blood pressure (if systolic blood pressure is greater than 120 mmHg). Risk concordance was defined as having a statin prescription in groups where ASCVD risk was > or equal to 7.5% and not having a statin prescription if it was < 7.5%. The least square means, using the patient's encounter level data, provides a marginal probability of the proportion of patients that would have a statin prescription within the risk*arm/group.
Measured: Approximately 4 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Jun 2020
- Study start10 May 2021
- Primary completion31 Dec 2024
- Study completion29 Apr 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cardiovascular RiskStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Mayo ClinicThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- Mixed method, hybrid implementation-effectiveness (Type III) step-wedge clustered randomized trial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 112,127 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mayo Clinic
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Jennifer L. Ridgeway, Mayo Clinic
- Investigators
- Jennifer Ridgeway, PhD, Principal investigator, Mayo ClinicVictor Montori, MD, Principal investigator, Mayo Clinic
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04450914
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 20-002772
- Other IDs
- R01HL151662-01
- Acronym
- SDM4IP
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 22 Jun 2020
- Last updated
- 29 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Ridgeway JL, Branda ME, Bagewadi S, Montori V, Jackson H, Nautiyal V, Dagoberg A, Gomez YL, Gharai H, Khurana CS, Louks K, Gravholt DL, Montori VM. Champions and early adopters in an implementation-effectiveness study of shared decision making: implications for interpersonal strategies. Implement Sci Commun. 2026 May 30. doi: 10.1186/s43058-026-00977-0. Online ahead of print.
PubMed 42218566Ridgeway JL, Branda ME, Gravholt D, Brito JP, Hargraves IG, Hartasanchez SA, Leppin AL, Gomez YL, Mann DM, Nautiyal V, Thomas RJ, Behnken EM, Torres Roldan VD, Shah ND, Khurana CS, Montori VM. Increasing risk-concordant cardiovascular care in diverse health systems: a mixed methods pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized implementation trial of shared decision making (SDM4IP). Implement Sci Commun. 2021 Apr 21;2(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s43058-021-00145-6.
PubMed 33883035
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Implementing Shared Decision Making (SDM) For Individualized CV Prevention (SDM4IP)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04450914
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SDM4IP / 20-002772
- Conditions
- Cardiovascular Risk, Cardiovascular Prevention
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 112,127 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mayo ClinicUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
- Study start
- 10 May 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 29 Apr 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Jun 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 29 Jul 2026
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the #1 cause of premature mortality and substantial morbidity in the U.S. Despite clinical guidelines, most clinical interventions are implemented in people at relatively lower CV risk, and few among people at the highest risk. Shared decision making (SDM) can mitigate the risk-treatment paradox by reducing risk blindness and lack of fit of the preventive regimen, but the adoption of SDM in routine clinical care is incomplete. This study addresses SDM adoption of a CV prevention SDM tool in three health systems.
Detailed description
The primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events is often more intense in individuals at lower risk and vice versa (the so called "risk-treatment paradox") in part due to unawareness of each person's CV risk, of their preferences for prevention interventions, and of their feasibility in each person's daily life. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that clinicians and patients work together to arrive at an effective and feasible prevention plan that is congruent with each person's CV risk and informed preferences, a process called shared decision making (SDM). Despite the availability of an innovative and effective tool that estimates CV risk, shows the impact and features of available lifestyle and pharmacological preventive interventions, and thus can facilitate CV treatment discussions between clinicians and patients, this type of SDM does not routinely happen in practice.
The challenge therefore is to identify strategies to increase adoption of this type of SDM in real-world clinical practices. This 4-year study - proposed by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in preventive cardiology, SDM, and implementation science - aims to integrate an SDM tool (the CV Prevention Choice tool) in the primary care practices of three diverse health care systems in the U.S. and study both the tool and tailored strategies that foster its adoption and routine use. The study will use a mixed method, hybrid implementation-effectiveness (Type III) step-wedge clustered randomized trial design to determine:
- Implementation effectiveness (Aim 1) by evaluating the settings (including local workflow and policies) in which the CV Prevention Choice tool is implemented and the engagement of users in implementation strategies; implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, adoption) associated with these strategies; and how implementation fosters routine adoption of SDM and the CV Prevention Choice tool in primary care practices, and
- SDM effectiveness (Aim 2) estimated by the extent to which individual CV prevention plans are feasible and congruent with each person's estimated CV risk and preferences.
The investigators hypothesize that efforts to assess local needs and use them to develop tailored implementation approaches will foster greater adoption of SDM in practice. They further hypothesize that individual preventive care plans will be congruent with estimated risk when clinicians adopt the SDM tool. The broad goal is to promote patient-centered care that effectively reduces the substantial burden of CV disease among Americans. By the project's end, the investigators expect to have (a) identified the most effective implementation strategies to embed SDM in routine practice and (b) estimated the effectiveness of SDM to achieve feasible and risk-concordant CV prevention in primary care.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Mixed method, hybrid implementation-effectiveness (Type III) step-wedge clustered randomized trial
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Sequence 1 | Other | Behavioral: CV Prevention Choice ToolSequence 1 began usual care (Step 1) on 9/24/2021, entered the active implementation period (Step 2) on 3/24/2022, and entered the maintenance period (Step 3) on 4/1/2024. In usual care, clinicans had access to CV Prevention Choice in their electronic health record but there were no other active implementation strategies deployed (passive implementation). The active implementation period included deployment of tailored implementaiton strategies. In the maintenance period, active implementation support ended but clinicians still had access to CV Prevention Choice in the EHR |
| Sequence 2 | Other | Behavioral: CV Prevention Choice Tool, Behavioral: Implementation Facilitation StrategiesSequence 2 began usual care (Step 1) on 4/13/2022, entered the active implementation period (Step 2) on 10/14/2022, and entered the maintenance period (Step 3) on 4/1/2024. In usual care, clinicans had access to CV Prevention Choice in their electronic health record but there were no other active implementation strategies deployed (passive implementation). The active implementation period included deployment of tailored implementaiton strategies. In the maintenance period, active implementation support ended but clinicians still had access to CV Prevention Choice in the EHR. |
| Sequence 3 | Other | Behavioral: CV Prevention Choice ToolSequence 3 began usual care (Step 1) on 6/13/2022, entered the active implementation period (Step 2) on 12/13/2022, and entered the maintenance period (Step 3) on 4/1/2024. In usual care, clinicans had access to CV Prevention Choice in their electronic health record but there were no other active implementation strategies deployed (passive implementation). The active implementation period included deployment of tailored implementaiton strategies. In the maintenance period, active implementation support ended but clinicians still had access to CV Prevention Choice in the EHR. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 40 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Clinician Participants: All clinicians who are affiliated with a participating primary care practice and care for adult patients eligible for CV prevention will be invited to participate.
- Patient Participants: Adult patients (ages 40-75 years) with or without diabetes who have not experienced an atherothrombotic clinical event and receive preventive care at a participating primary care practice will be eligible to participate.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Individuals who do not speak English or have any sort of cognitive deficit that would impact their ability to consent to participate in the study will not be invited to participate.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| CV Prevention Choice ToolThe CV Prevention Choice SDM tool is a shared decision making intervention. It is embedded in the electronic health record and uses EHR data to estimate and display cardiovascular risk for individual patients and then foster conversations between clinicians and patients about available options for preventive care based on individual risk and preferences. | Behavioural | Sequence 1, Sequence 2, Sequence 3 |
| Implementation Facilitation StrategiesDuring the active implementation stage, health systems will deploy tailored implementation facilitation and other tailored implementation strategies aimed at increasing adoption and use of shared decision making using CV Prevention Choice. | Behavioural | Sequence 2 |
Primary outcome
Reach (RE-AIM): The Percentage of Clinicians Who Ever Used CV Prevention Choice
Time frame: Approximately 3.5 years
Percentage of clinicians who used CV Prevention Choice, among all eligible clinicians in participating settings. Clinicians were eligible if they had at least one encounter during the period evaluated. Utilization was recorded in the electronic health record. Higher percentages indicate greater intervention reach.
Effectiveness (RE-AIM): Clinician Perceptions of CV Prevention Choice Effectiveness
Time frame: Approximately 3.5 years
Perceptions of CV Prevention Choice effectiveness, including whether it helps support shared decision making conversations, as assessed through interviews with eligible clinicians. Participant counts reflect the number of interview participants in the arm/group who indicated CV Prevention Choice supports shared decision making, does not support shared decision making, or were unsure whether it supported shared decision making.
Adoption (RE-AIM): The Percentage of Clinicians Who Adopted CV Prevention Choice in Routine Care
Time frame: Approximately 3.5 years
Percentage of eligible clinicians that used CV Prevention Choice in encounters identified in the electronic health record as a visit for preventive care (visit reason listed as annual exam or annual wellness visit), among all eligible preventive care encounters. Utilization was recorded in the electronic health record. Higher percentages indicate greater adoption.
Adoption (RE-AIM): Clinician Perceptions of CV Prevention Choice Adoption
Time frame: Approximately 3.5 years
Perceptions of CV Prevention Choice adoption, including reasons for adopting it or failing to adopt it in routine care, as assessed through interviews with eligible clinicians. Participant counts reflect the number of interview participants in the arm/group who gave reasons for adopting or not adopting CV Prevention Choice.
Implementation (RE-AIM): Observer Scoring of Clinician Fidelity to Shared Decision Making Behaviors in Audio-video Recorded Encounters
Time frame: Approximately 1 year
A sample of clinical encounters were audio-video recorded, reviewed by trained study staff, and scored using a fidelity checklist with 10 items indicating shared decision making behaviors. Each item was scored on a on a scale from -1=Behavior was undermined by comment or action to 4=The behavior is exhibited to a very high standard. An overall average score ranging from -1 to 4 was created by averaging the 10 item scores. A higher mean score indicates greater fidelity to the core components of shared decision making.
Implementation (RE-AIM): Average Patient-reported Rating of the Quality of Shared Decision Making After a Clinical Encounter
Time frame: Approximately 1 year
The quality of shared decision making was assessed using the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), which is a patient self-report measure designed to measure the extent and quality of shared decision making in a clinical encounter from the patient perspective. The nine items are scored on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 6 (Completely Agree). Scores are summed and transformed to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating greater perceived involvement in decision-making.
Implementation (RE-AIM): Average Patient-reported Quality of Care After a Clinical Encounter
Time frame: Approximately 1 year
The quality of care was assessed using the 10-item Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure, which is a patient-reported measure of the experience of care in a clinical encounter. Higher scores are indicative of higher patient reported relational empathy in the consultation. Items are scored from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) and summed for a range of scores from 10 to 50. Higher scores indicate more positive assessment of care processes.
Maintenance (RE-AIM): The Percentage of Clinicians Using CV Prevention Choice at the End of the Maintenance Period Compared to the Beginning of the Period
Time frame: Approximately 1 year
The percentage of clinicians using CV Prevention Choice, as indicated in the electronic health record, at the transition to the maintenance period was compared to the percentage in the last two months of the maintenance phase. Equivalent or higher percentage use at the end of the maintenance stage indicates maintenance of the tool as part of routine practice.
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of How CV Prevention Choice Differs From Usual Ways of Working
Time frame: Approximately 3 years
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "I can see how it differs from usual ways of working" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Whether CV Prevention Choice Has Potential Value for Their Work
Time frame: Approximately 3 years
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "I can see the potential value of it for my own work" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Whether There Are Key People to Drive CV Prevention Choice Forward and Get Others Involved
Time frame: Approximately 3 years
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "There are key people who drive it forward and get others involved" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Whether CV Prevention Choice Can be Easily Integrated Into Existing Work
Time frame: Approximately 3 years
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "I can easily integrate it into my existing work" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Whether Sufficient Training Was Provided to Implement CV Prevention Choice
Time frame: Approximately 3 years
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "Sufficient training is provided to enable staff to implement it" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Management Support for CV Prevention Choice
Time frame: Approximately 3 years
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "Management adequately supports it" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
Maintenance (RE-AIM): Clinician Self-reported Perception of Whether Staff Agree CV Prevention Choice is Worthwhile
Time frame: Approximately 3 years
Seven items from the 23-item Normalization Measure Development Questionnaire (NoMAD) were administered to clinicians to assess the extent to which CV Prevention Choice had become a routine part of their practice (i.e., normalized in practice). The item "The staff agree that it is worthwhile" was scored on a Likert scale from 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree. Higher levels of agreement indicate higher levels of normalization of CV Prevention Choice into routine care.
1 secondary outcome
Effectiveness: The Predicted Marginal Probability of Statin Use is Concordant With Estimated Cardiovascular Risk
Time frame: Approximately 4 years
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Jul 2026.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 42218566Ridgeway JL, Branda ME, Bagewadi S, Montori V, Jackson H, Nautiyal V, Dagoberg A, Gomez YL, Gharai H, Khurana CS, Louks K, Gravholt DL, Montori VM. Champions and early adopters in an implementation-effectiveness study of shared decision making: implications for interpersonal strategies. Implement Sci Commun. 2026 May 30. doi: 10.1186/s43058-026-00977-0. Online ahead of print.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 33883035Ridgeway JL, Branda ME, Gravholt D, Brito JP, Hargraves IG, Hartasanchez SA, Leppin AL, Gomez YL, Mann DM, Nautiyal V, Thomas RJ, Behnken EM, Torres Roldan VD, Shah ND, Khurana CS, Montori VM. Increasing risk-concordant cardiovascular care in diverse health systems: a mixed methods pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized implementation trial of shared decision making (SDM4IP). Implement Sci Commun. 2021 Apr 21;2(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s43058-021-00145-6.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Cardiovascular Risk
RecruitingObservational study
Geospatial Analysis of Neighborhood Environmental Stress in Relation to Biological Markers of Cardiovascular Health and Health Behaviors in Women
Cardiovascular (CV) Risk
Recruiting
Weight Management After Cancer for Survivors in Rural Communities
Breast Cancer Survivorship, Weight Management
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With IBD
Ulcerative Colitis (UC), Crohn's Diseases
Not yet recruiting
Digital Nudges to Improve Heart Health Actions After Community Screening in Malaysia (NADI-MyHeartRisk)
Cardiovascular Diseases, Cardiovascular Risk Factor
RecruitingPhase 3
Zilebesiran in Patients With Hypertension Not Adequately Controlled and With Either Established Cardiovascular Disease or High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease
High Risk Cardiovascular Disease, Hypertension
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Jennifer Ridgeway, PhD principal investigator
Mayo Clinic
Victor Montori, MD principal investigator
Mayo Clinic
4 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing CV Prevention Choice Tool and Implementation Facilitation Strategies in people with Cardiovascular Risk and Cardiovascular Prevention, run by Mayo Clinic at 4 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 4 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 29 Jul 2026). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Reach (RE-AIM): The Percentage of Clinicians Who Ever Used CV Prevention Choice (time frame: Approximately 3.5 years). The study lists 15 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04450914, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 29 Jul 2026; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.