Skip to main content
Search

National Wear Red Day 2026: Move women’s cardiovascular health from a visible symbol to a visible operating priority

National Wear Red Day 2026: Move women’s cardiovascular health from a visible symbol to a visible operating priority
Greg Wahlstrom, MBA, HCM
National Wear Red Day 2026 red priority runway linking risk assessment, symptom recognition, emergency response, prevention, and follow-up.

February 6, 2026 · Executive Brief

Turn recognition into one accountable cardiovascular pathway.

Wearing red makes women’s cardiovascular health visible. Healthcare executives must make risk recognition, accurate assessment, timely treatment, equitable access, rehabilitation, and follow-through equally visible.

National Wear Red Day is observed on Friday, February 6, 2026. The observance is part of American Heart Month and is associated with the national movement to increase attention to cardiovascular disease in women. No distinct official one-year slogan was identified for 2026. This article therefore uses an editorial leadership focus rather than presenting a new campaign theme: select one women’s cardiovascular pathway, identify where recognition fails to become action, and repair the handoff that leaves people without a clear next step.

That pathway begins before symptoms. Blood-pressure recognition, lipid and diabetes management, tobacco treatment, physical activity, nutrition support, pregnancy-related cardiovascular risk, and trusted community communication shape prevention. When illness occurs, rapid assessment, medication reconciliation, specialty coordination, discharge planning, cardiac rehabilitation, and longitudinal follow-through become part of the same operating obligation.

The 20 peer-reviewed studies reviewed for this article include current evidence on chest-pain evaluation, lipid treatment, heart failure, pregnancy-related risk, menopause, rehabilitation, hypertension recognition, equity, and women’s cardiometabolic prevention. They also include randomized trials, systematic reviews, qualitative studies, and implementation analyses published from 2022 through 2026. The studies span several countries, populations, and service models. Their differences are a strength for identifying recurring operating problems, but they prevent a single universal effect estimate. Leaders should use the evidence to design local tests, not to promise a result that the local population and delivery system have not yet demonstrated.

The leadership signal

Cardiovascular risk is often visible before the care system acts on it.

Recognition is not a single clinical moment. A person may have an elevated blood-pressure reading in primary care, a pregnancy-related risk history held in another record, a medication that cannot be obtained, a referral that never becomes an appointment, or symptoms that are described in language the receiving team does not immediately recognize. Each signal can be technically documented while the operating response remains incomplete.

A 2026 population-based study in a socioeconomically disadvantaged Danish region examined 7,329 participants with hypertension. Thirty-nine percent were unrecognized, and two-thirds of those with unrecognized hypertension were classified as having high 10-year cardiovascular risk and meeting treatment criteria. Among people with recognized hypertension, 51% had uncontrolled blood pressure even though more than half were receiving at least two antihypertensive agents. This cross-sectional analysis cannot explain every reason for nonrecognition or lack of control, and its regional context matters. It demonstrates why a diagnosis count alone is not a pathway measure.5

An emergency department study published in 2026 analyzed 23,803 people with intermediate high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I values across nine Michigan emergency departments. Severe blood pressure was associated with a higher mean troponin level after adjustment, while 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events were uncommon. The analysis was secondary and observational within a stepped-wedge trial dataset, so it does not establish that the blood-pressure category caused an event. Its operational value is narrower: abnormal blood pressure and an intermediate biomarker result require consistent interpretation, risk assessment, communication, and follow-up rather than an isolated flag.1

Pregnancy-related cardiovascular risk illustrates another form of lost recognition. Interviews with 28 women Veterans found that relevant pregnancy records could be incomplete, recommendations could be vague or conflicting, and social conditions could make risk-reduction advice difficult to follow. Strong primary-care relationships helped women manage risk. This qualitative study does not estimate prevalence, yet it shows why risk history must be portable, understandable, and connected to an accountable prevention plan.17

Prevention that reaches people

Design prevention as a connected service, not a sequence of reminders.

Cardiovascular prevention becomes reliable when a risk signal produces a usable next action. That action may be a repeat measurement, an assessment, a prescription, a lifestyle-support service, a community referral, or urgent evaluation. Each requires a receiving owner, capacity, understandable communication, and a method to detect noncompletion. Simply increasing the number of screenings can create a larger unresolved queue if treatment and follow-up capacity do not expand with demand.

A 2026 qualitative study of Iran’s first national mass high-blood-pressure screening program identified implementation challenges across planning, human resources, coordination, information systems, public participation, and continuity. The findings reflect one national program and qualitative interpretation rather than comparative causal evidence. They still reinforce an executive principle: a screening campaign must be designed backward from the treatment and follow-up capacity required after a positive finding.7

Local prevention is also a network problem. Researchers mapping cardiovascular-prevention activities in metropolitan Denver identified 82 active programs across 10 organization types and described opportunities to strengthen equity through better connections, resource allocation, basic-needs referrals, and systems methods. The study used interviews conducted in 2021 and four program examples, so it cannot represent every current program or prove that added connections improve outcomes. It gives leaders a practical map: clinical care, behavioral support, access, public health, and policy work often exist, but their interfaces may be weak.6

Community-delivered care can reduce distance when clinical governance remains clear. In a pilot randomized trial in rural Kenya and Uganda, 200 adults with moderate-to-severe hypertension received either clinician-led care through community-health-worker-facilitated telehealth or clinic-based follow-up. Hypertension control was 77% versus 51% at 24 weeks and 86% versus 44% at 48 weeks. The study was small, unblinded except for the statistician, and conducted in three primary-health centers across two countries. The effect should not be imported as a local forecast. The finding supports testing models that bring titration and follow-up closer to people while retaining a clinician, a protocol, and a clear escalation route.9

A nurse and primary care clinician review a blood-pressure reading and cardiovascular risk plan with a patient in a bright community clinic.
Illustrative image. Reliable prevention connects a confirmed measurement to understandable risk communication, a receiving owner, treatment access, and documented follow-through. The scene represents an evidence-informed operating concept, not a named organization or measured result.5, 6, 7, 9
Figure 1

Cardiac-rehabilitation enrollment by referral approach

Exact values reported in the study abstract
Referral approachParticipants who enrolledEnrollment rate
Usual referral1695.8%
Automatic referral22511.8%
Source: Miralles-Resurreccion et al., 2022.20 Population: patients referred after coronary artery bypass grafting at one Southeast Asian tertiary center from 2013 through 2019. Denominator note: the study included 4,792 referred patients; this figure displays the group counts and percentages reported in the abstract without deriving group denominators from rounded values. Limitation: retrospective, single-center evidence shows association, not a guaranteed local effect or sustained participation. This bar chart is a planning signal, not a benchmark.

One connected cardiovascular pathway

Carry the signal from prevention through recovery without losing ownership.

A cardiovascular pathway should not force people to reconstruct the system after every encounter. The route begins with community communication and routine risk identification. It continues through confirmation, risk assessment, treatment, acute response when needed, transition, and rehabilitation. The path is not always linear. People may enter through an emergency department, obstetric care, primary care, specialty care, or a community program. Reliability comes from common handoff rules, not from a single point of entry.

Those rules should answer six questions. What signal requires action? Who receives it? What information must travel? How does the receiving team acknowledge responsibility? What happens if capacity or access prevents the next step? How will the sending team know whether the loop closed? The answer should be visible to the person receiving care as well as to the teams involved.

Cardiac rehabilitation exposes the difference between a referral and an accepted transition. A 2026 survey of 166 healthcare professionals in Riyadh found that only about 40% reported referring patients to cardiac rehabilitation. Common barriers included limited program availability, patient refusal, mobility, workforce shortages, comorbidities, and limited awareness. The cross-sectional, self-reported design limits generalization and cannot establish causes. It makes clear that an electronic order cannot solve a capacity, trust, transportation, or communication problem by itself.2

A 2025 multi-method mapping study of cardiac-surgery rehabilitation pathways in Denmark found variation in referral, enrollment, program content, delivery, and follow-up. It also identified a prolonged transition between inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation and limited patient involvement early in recovery. This setting-specific qualitative mapping does not quantify comparative outcomes. It shows why pathway design should include patients and should make sector boundaries explicit before the discharge date.10

Figure 2

Proposed cardiovascular process flow

  1. Recognize riskOwner: every access pointMake blood pressure, symptoms, risk history, access barriers, and missed follow-up visible.
  2. ConfirmOwner: qualified clinical teamRepeat, interpret, assess urgency, and define the next evidence-based action.
  3. ConnectOwner: navigation and access teamsSchedule, authorize, translate, transport, and preserve a non-digital route.
  4. TreatOwner: primary, specialty, and pharmacy teamsMake medication, education, monitoring, and escalation usable.
  5. TransitionOwner: sending and receiving teamsReconcile the plan, transfer risk, acknowledge receipt, and keep exceptions visible.
  6. RestoreOwner: rehabilitation and community partnersSupport safe activity, confidence, participation, and long-term self-management.
  7. GovernOwner: executive pathway leadershipReview completion, delays, outcomes, experience, inequities, and unresolved work.
Evidence basis: recognition, community delivery, transition, and cardiac-rehabilitation studies.2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15 Applicability: executive workflow design across locally approved cardiovascular services. Limitation: this process flow is an original management framework, not a clinical guideline. Clinical urgency, professional standards, and local policy govern each step.

Equity, trust, and communication

Do not interpret an access failure as a motivation failure.

Participation is shaped by more than willingness. Language, transportation, cost, work, caregiving, digital access, mobility, program hours, family expectations, prior experiences, and confidence can determine whether the next step is usable. A pathway that measures only attendance can label people as noncompliant while leaving the organization’s design barriers invisible.

A 2025 qualitative systematic review synthesized 13 studies involving 384 South Asian participants in the United Kingdom and Canada. Communication and knowledge, motivation, religion, program delivery, and practical considerations shaped cardiac-rehabilitation participation. Language barriers, family support, fatalistic beliefs, and motivation were especially important. The evidence was limited to two countries and a modest participant base, and qualitative findings do not establish the frequency or rank of barriers. They support designing services with communities rather than adding cultural messaging to an unchanged program.11

Interviews with 14 cardiovascular and stroke professionals, network leaders, and nongovernment representatives described challenges delivering culturally and linguistically tailored prevention education. Limited interpreter access, translated materials, and fit with differing health beliefs were recurring problems. Participants emphasized simple evidence-based content, trusted messengers, and community partnership. Because this was a small qualitative study, the themes are not prevalence estimates. They identify practical design questions for communication governance, workforce capability, and resource allocation.18

Equity also requires separating reach from completion. A 2026 audit of a statewide cardiometabolic risk-reduction program for women with a history of gestational diabetes included 2,261 participants. The adapted program reached more women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds but had lower completion than the mainstream program. Observational program data cannot prove why participants left or that adaptation caused differences. The finding warns leaders not to treat diverse enrollment as proof of equitable benefit. Retention, access support, and completed services must remain visible.8

Community partnerships can reveal conditions that a clinical workflow misses. A 2025 Chicago study used interviews and focus groups to examine a sodium-reduction intervention in the South Side. Barriers included limited awareness, food access, and cultural dietary traditions; facilitators included faith-based partnerships and openness to supportive technology. The study informs implementation in one community and does not establish that the proposed strategies reduced blood pressure. Its value is procedural: listen locally, simplify messages, build with trusted partners, and preserve structural action alongside individual education.16

Figure 3

Contributors to preventable loss of cardiovascular health

Evidence basis: qualitative, cross-sectional, implementation, and equity studies.2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 Method: the branches are an unranked qualitative synthesis and do not represent cause counts. Limitation: local causes, frequency, and interaction must be validated before action.

Medication, transition, and recovery

A discharge plan is reliable only when the next owner can act on it.

Cardiovascular transitions combine clinical risk with operational friction. The person may leave with new medications, monitoring needs, warning signs, dietary and activity recommendations, primary-care and cardiology follow-up, laboratory work, and a rehabilitation referral. Each item may have a different owner. If the plan is technically complete but unaffordable, untranslated, unscheduled, or invisible to the next team, the transition remains incomplete.

A 2026 multicenter cross-sectional study of 327 adults with heart failure in Ethiopia found good medication adherence among 44.65% of participants. Higher heart-failure knowledge, access to free medications, and education about adherence were independently associated with adherence. Self-report measurement, cross-sectional design, and a specific regional setting limit causal and broader interpretation. The study demonstrates why leaders should distinguish knowledge, affordability, and education rather than reducing adherence to a single patient attribute.4

An Australian before-and-after study examined an electronic heart-failure medication titration plan embedded in the discharge summary. Ninety-eight participants before implementation and 96 after implementation were compared. Medication up-titration was numerically higher after the intervention, but the reported one-month difference was not statistically significant. A digital plan may improve visibility, yet an observational comparison cannot isolate its effect, and a document does not ensure that primary care has capacity, confidence, or timely laboratory information to act.13

A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized trials found that nurse-led telephone follow-up after acute coronary syndrome may reduce blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and probably improve medication adherence and smoking cessation. Effects on anxiety, depression, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and total cholesterol were uncertain. Interventions and settings varied, so leaders should not collapse the pooled findings into a guaranteed local bundle. The review supports structured follow-up with defined outcomes and attention to what telephone care does not resolve.12

A randomized trial of a transitional-care pathway for 79 people with acute coronary syndrome found higher overall treatment-adherence scores at one month in the intervention group. Dietary and physical-activity adherence improved, while the between-group difference in medication adherence was not significant. The small sample and one-month follow-up limit durability claims. The result shows why a transition dashboard should separate medication, activity, diet, appointment, and experience measures rather than calling the whole pathway adherent or nonadherent.14

An older adult reviews unbranded medications and an icon-based recovery plan with a pharmacist and cardiac rehabilitation nurse.
Illustrative image. A reliable cardiovascular transition combines medication access, teach-back, a named receiving owner, rehabilitation choice, and a confirmed next contact. The scene represents an evidence-informed care concept, not a named organization or measured result.4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15

The operating model

Make cardiovascular performance a shared system responsibility.

No single department owns every part of cardiovascular health. Primary care may recognize and manage risk. Emergency and inpatient teams respond to acute illness. Cardiology and pharmacy support treatment. Rehabilitation and community partners support recovery and participation. Population-health, access, experience, equity, finance, information, and quality teams make the pathway visible and usable. Distributed work still requires one accountable operating model.

That model needs an executive sponsor who can remove barriers across service lines and a pathway owner who can see the full route. Each interface needs a sending role, receiving role, minimum information set, acknowledgment, timing expectation, and escalation rule. Capacity must be reviewed with demand. A campaign that increases screening, questions, or referrals without staffing the receiving services transfers risk downstream.

Human infrastructure matters. A Nigerian mixed-methods study of 381 community health workers and 14 patients found that community health workers made important contributions to hypertension management, while gaps remained in diagnostic and investigation knowledge. Supervision by physicians was associated with better knowledge of baseline investigations. Cross-sectional associations and a small qualitative patient sample do not establish the effect of supervision. The study supports role clarity, training, decision boundaries, and escalation instead of assuming that task shifting alone creates quality.19

Rehabilitation also depends on professional and social support after enrollment. A 2026 process evaluation nested in the STRENGTH cluster randomized trial found that participants valued professional oversight, peer interaction, tailored support, accountability, and self-monitoring. Environmental, social, and personal conditions shaped sustained physical activity. The qualitative process evaluation describes mechanisms and experience; it does not independently estimate clinical effectiveness. Leaders can use it to design participation support while continuing to measure actual completion and outcomes.3

Figure 4

Cardiovascular operating-system diagram

Evidence basis: implementation, workforce, community, transition, and rehabilitation evidence.2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19 Applicability: an executive relationship model for locally governed services. Limitation: the diagram does not prescribe staffing ratios, clinical protocols, funding, or legal accountability.
A multidisciplinary cardiovascular team and community representative map a connected prevention-to-recovery pathway on a glass wall.
Illustrative image. Cardiovascular reliability depends on leaders, clinicians, rehabilitation, pharmacy, community partners, and people with lived experience reviewing the same pathway, capacity constraints, and unresolved handoffs. The scene represents an evidence-informed leadership concept, not a named organization or measured result.3, 6, 10, 16, 18, 19

Decision-grade measurement

Measure whether people reach, receive, and continue the next useful action.

Awareness metrics describe communication reach. They do not establish pathway performance. Impressions, event attendance, quiz completions, screenings, and referrals can be useful activity measures, but they must not substitute for confirmed recognition, treatment access, transition acceptance, rehabilitation participation, or resolved barriers.

Leaders should define denominators before setting targets. For blood-pressure recognition, the denominator may be people with qualifying readings under a locally adopted definition, while the numerator captures those with confirmation and a documented next step. For rehabilitation, referral, contact, enrollment, attendance, completion, and reassessment are separate conversion stages. For medication access, a prescription, a first fill, continued possession, understanding, and tolerated use are different measures. Every definition needs exclusions, data source, owner, cadence, and a plan for missing data.

Measures should also make variation interpretable. Stratification by site, age, sex, race and ethnicity, language, geography, payer, disability, digital access, referral source, and other locally appropriate factors may reveal a different operating problem. Privacy, small-cell suppression, governance, and community interpretation must shape reporting. A disparity signal should trigger investigation, not a causal conclusion or a stereotype.

Cardiac-rehabilitation data demonstrate the need for conversion measures. Automatic referral was associated with more enrollment in one retrospective cohort, yet overall participation remained low.20 A referral-practice survey identified capacity, mobility, awareness, workforce, and patient refusal as barriers.2 A qualitative systematic review showed that language, family, beliefs, motivation, and program delivery shaped participation.11 No single measure can represent all three stages.

Figure 5

Proposed executive cardiovascular scorecard

Illustrative measures requiring local definition, validation, and approval
DomainDecision question and possible measureNumerator and denominatorOwner and cadenceRequired limitation
Risk recognitionDo qualifying cardiovascular signals reach confirmation and a documented next action?People with confirmation and a next step ÷ people meeting the adopted signal definitionPrimary care and population health, monthlyDefinitions, repeat-measurement rules, exclusions, and missing data vary.
Medication accessAre prescribed cardiovascular medications obtained and reviewed for understanding and barriers?People confirming access and review ÷ people with a new or changed prescriptionPharmacy and care management, weeklyClaims or fill data do not prove correct or continued use.
Transition acceptanceDoes the receiving team acknowledge the plan and act within the defined interval?Accepted transitions with completed next action ÷ eligible dischargesHospital and ambulatory operations, weeklyEligibility, urgency, competing risk, and out-of-network care require rules.
RehabilitationHow many eligible people are referred, contacted, enrolled, retained, completed, and reassessed?Report each stage ÷ the immediately prior stage and the original eligible cohortRehabilitation leadership, monthlyStage definitions, program types, contraindications, and patient choice matter.
Experience and equityCan people explain the next step, identify the owner, and report barriers safely?Defined survey or interview response ÷ eligible respondents, with response rateExperience, equity, and community partners, quarterlyNonresponse, language access, privacy, and qualitative context affect interpretation.
Campaign closureDid the selected National Wear Red Day improvement reach verified completion?Completed and verified actions ÷ approved actionsExecutive sponsor, at 30, 60, and 90 daysA completed task is not automatically a clinical outcome.
Evidence basis: all 20 reviewed studies informed the domains and cautions. Unit: locally defined people, events, or actions under stable inclusion rules. Denominator: specified separately for every row. Limitation: this structured table does not establish targets, benchmarks, causal attribution, or a universal reporting cadence. Local clinical, analytic, privacy, and equity review is required.

The 90-day executive agenda

Use National Wear Red Day to repair one cardiovascular handoff.

Choose a narrow, important pathway where the organization already sees loss, delay, variation, or inequity. It may be confirmation after elevated blood pressure, follow-up after a pregnancy-related risk signal, medication access after discharge, acceptance of a cardiology handoff, or cardiac-rehabilitation enrollment. Define the eligible cohort and the failure state before choosing the intervention.

During days 1 through 30, name the executive sponsor and operating owner. Trace representative cases from the first signal to the next useful action. Listen to patients, caregivers, community partners, and every sending and receiving team. Quantify the current denominator, conversion stages, wait times, missing information, access barriers, exceptions, and unowned work. Select one failure that is frequent enough to learn from and narrow enough to change.

During days 31 through 60, co-design the future-state handoff. Specify the trigger, receiving role, minimum information, acknowledgment, timing, escalation, and closure signal. Test the design with language services, pharmacy, rehabilitation, information technology, privacy, scheduling, and community representatives when those interfaces are involved. Simulate routine, after-hours, high-risk, and access-constrained cases. Revise the workflow when a receiving team lacks capacity to accept the promised demand.

During days 61 through 90, implement at a controlled scale. Monitor adoption, missed cases, workload, safety, experience, and equity. Review exceptions weekly. Compare early signals with the baseline, but do not claim a durable outcome from a short test. Correct the workflow before expanding it. Report what changed, what remains uncertain, and who owns the next action.

Figure 6

Gantt-style timeline for a 90-day cardiovascular reliability cycle

Milestone one

One cohort, failure state, baseline, and accountable owner are approved.

Milestone two

The tested handoff passes clinical, capacity, usability, privacy, access, and equity review.

Milestone three

Leaders verify adoption, exceptions, early signals, limitations, and the next accountable action.

Evidence basis: implementation synthesis from recognition, screening, community delivery, transition, medication, rehabilitation, and equity studies.2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 Dependencies: named ownership, receiving capacity, data definitions, and stakeholder participation. Limitation: these are projected management phases, not achieved clinical or operational outcomes.

Leadership close

Do not miss the system signal after February 6.

National Wear Red Day can make cardiovascular disease more visible. Leadership must make the response more reliable. Recognize risk before crisis. Give every abnormal signal a next owner. Protect medication access. Design transitions for acceptance, not transmission. Treat cardiac rehabilitation as part of the care pathway. Measure conversion, participation, experience, equity, and unresolved work.

The strongest commitment is specific enough to complete. Select one pathway, one failure state, one accountable owner, and one 90-day test. Use the campaign to create attention, but let evidence, local listening, capacity, and professional judgment shape the change. Report what improved and what did not. Wear red, then make the route work becomes an executive standard when the organization also refuses to miss a preventable gap in recognition, access, handoff, or recovery.

National Wear Red Day commitmentAuthorize one 90-day cardiovascular reliability cycle that makes recognition, ownership, access, transition acceptance, rehabilitation, and resolution observable.

Continue the work

Related executive resources

American Heart Month 2026Connect cardiac emergency readiness with reliable prevention follow-through. National High Blood Pressure Education Month 2026Make recognition, access, and follow-through visible. Heart Failure Awareness Week 2026Build one accountable system for treatment, transition, and living well. National Wear Red Day 2026Move women’s cardiovascular health from a symbol to an operating priority. Official National Wear Red Day 2026 campaignReview the February 6 campaign and “Wear red, then make the route work” resources.

Evidence reviewed

Scholarly references

  1. Castellan de Moraes Rogerio, Dourado PM, Rocha VZ, et al. Inflammation, Statin Pleiotropy, and Cardiovascular Prevention in Women: Established Evidence, Biological Plausibility, and Knowledge Gaps. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease. 2026;13(8):389. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd13080389
  2. Cabac-Pogorevici I, Creangă I, Jitari I, et al. Gender disparities in heart failure diagnosis and management: under the radar. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2026;13:1893614. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2026.1893614
  3. Diercks D, Cao M, McHugh M, Kibbey C, Farooqi S. Evaluation and management of chest pain from cardiovascular causes in female patients. BMJ. 2026;392:e086177. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-086177
  4. Rachel-Paige C, Borgia L, Steinbach E, et al. Joint Influence of Age at Menopause and Hormone Therapy on Postmenopausal Hypertension Risk: NHANES 2011–2020. Women. 2026;6(1):4. https://doi.org/10.3390/women6010004
  5. Jeemon P, Uthup S, Anikkady N. When Risk is Unequal: Gendered Pathways to Cardiovascular Disease. Global Heart. 2026;21(1):33. https://doi.org/10.5334/gh.1549
  6. Mettananda C, Fernando K, Solangaarachchige M, et al. Sex-related disparities in hyperlipidaemia and cardiovascular risk in Sri Lanka: a cross-sectional study. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2026;25(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-025-02812-2
  7. Shan S, Sun W, Wu J, Zhu Y, Song P. Population attributable risk of traditional, under-recognised and female-specific factors for heart failure in women. Heart. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2025-326345
  8. Pine PLS, Rivera FB, Magalong JVU, et al. Enrollment of all-female and lactating or pregnant female participants in cardiovascular trials. NPJ Cardiovascular Health. 2025;2(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44325-025-00084-4
  9. Sedrakyan S, Nadeem B, Gaughran D, et al. Bridging Gaps in LDL-C Management: Utilization of Lipid-Lowering Therapies, Gender Disparities, and the Impact of Cardiology Visits on Secondary Prevention. American Journal of Cardiology. 2025;253:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2025.05.029
  10. Klootwijk A, Nicolaie MA, Struijs JN, et al. Predicting the risk for hypertension and cardiovascular disease after pregnancy: A multistate model. European Journal of Public Health. 2025;35(Suppl 4). https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaf161.679
  11. McAllister J, et al. Identifying barriers and enablers to cardiac rehabilitation participation and completion unique to South Asian individuals: a qualitative systematic review. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2025;24(5):670–685. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvaf044
  12. Zhang W, et al. Effectiveness of Nurse-Led Telephone-Based Follow-Up Interventions on Health Outcomes in People With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. 2025;22(6):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.70079
  13. Truong A, Roussety A. The impact of a transition of care electronic medication titration plan on optimising the treatment of heart failure after hospital discharge. Journal of Pharmacy Practice & Research. 2025;55(5):406–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/jppr.70014
  14. Jasmshidbeigi A, et al. Impact of Transitional Care Pathway on Treatment Adherence in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Evidence-Based Care. 2025;15(4):55–66. https://doi.org/10.22038/ebcj.2025.87319.3119
  15. Sunonnam R, Siripitayakunkit A, Jianvitayakij S. Effectiveness of a Transitional Care Support Program for People with Heart Failure: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research. 2025;29(4):829–847. https://doi.org/10.60099/prijnr.2025.274482
  16. Sanuade OA, et al. Contextual factors and implementation strategies for a multi-level community-based sodium reduction intervention in Chicago’s South Side: a qualitative study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Activity. 2025;22(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-025-01794-9
  17. Mattocks KM, Shenette LL, Goldstein K, et al. Understanding Pregnancy-Related Cardiovascular Disease Risk Communication and Management Among Women Veterans. Journal of Women’s Health. 2025;34(3):e433–e440. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2024.0618
  18. Allida SM, et al. Challenges and Opportunities in Delivering and Providing Culturally and Linguistically Tailored Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke Prevention Education: A Qualitative Exploratory Study. Health Expectations. 2025;28(5):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70456
  19. Oseni TIA, et al. The role of community health workers in the management of hypertension in Nigeria. BMC Primary Care. 2024;25(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02521-2
  20. Miralles-Resurreccion KV, Grace SL, Cuenza LR. Trends in cardiac rehabilitation enrollment post-coronary artery bypass grafting upon implementation of automatic referral in Southeast Asia: A retrospective cohort study. Journal of Cardiovascular & Thoracic Research. 2022;14(2):84–89. https://doi.org/10.34172/jcvtr.2022.22