ArticlePloS one2016
Screening for Atrial Fibrillation--A Cross-Sectional Survey of Healthcare Professionals in Primary Care.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Key stakeholder views on atrial fibrillation screening: a systematic mixed-studies review and interpretive analysis.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Screening for Atrial Fibrillation using Economical and accurate TechnologY (SAFETY)-a pilot study.BMJ open · 2017Trial
- Pharmacy-Based Atrial Fibrillation Screening Model Coordinated by a Regional Stroke and Cardiovascular Disease Support Center: The Catch AF Project.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Effectiveness of electrocardiogram interpretation education program using mixed learning methods and webpage.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Screening and detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care: current practice and future perspectives.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Advancing arrhythmia education through the CDIO approach: a new paradigm in nursing student training.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- High Diagnostic Accuracy of Long-Term Electrocardiogram Interpretation by General Practitioners.International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2024Article
- Article
- Regional implementation of atrial fibrillation screening: benefits and pitfalls.European heart journal. Digital health · 2022Article
- Experiences with screening for atrial fibrillation: a qualitative study in general practice.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Pharmacists detecting atrial fibrillation in general practice: a qualitative focus group study.BJGP open · 2020Article
- Screening for atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias in primary care.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- How do Dutch general practitioners detect and diagnose atrial fibrillation? Results of an online case vignette study.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- Applying the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour Model (COM-B) to Guide the Development of Interventions to Improve Early Detection of Atrial Fibrillation.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2019Review
- Article
- Screening of older patients for atrial fibrillation in general practice: Current evidence and its implications for future practice.The European journal of general practice · 2017Review
- Article
- Interpretation of electrocardiograms in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionScreening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care has been recommended; however, the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) are not known. This study aimed to determine the opinions of HCP about the feasibility of implementing screening within a primary care setting.
methodsA cross-sectional mixed methods census survey of 418 HCPs from 59 inner-city practices (Nottingham, UK) was conducted between October-December 2014. Postal and web-surveys ascertained data on existing methods, knowledge, skills, attitudes, barriers and facilitators to AF screening using Likert scale and open-ended questions. Responses, categorized according to HCP group, were summarized using proportions, adjusting for clustering by practice, with 95% C.Is and free-text responses using thematic analysis.
resultsAt least one General Practitioner (GP) responded from 48 (81%) practices. There were 212/418 (51%) respondents; 118/229 GPs, 67/129 nurses [50 practice nurses; 17 Nurse Practitioners (NPs)], 27/60 healthcare assistants (HCAs). 39/48 (81%) practices had an ECG machine and diagnosed AF in-house. Non-GP HCPs reported having less knowledge about ECG interpretation, diagnosing and treating AF than GPs. A greater proportion of non-GP HCPs reported they would benefit from ECG training specifically for AF diagnosis than GPs [proportion (95% CI) GPs: 11.9% (6.8-20.0); HCAs: 37.0% (21.7-55.5); nurses: 44.0% (30.0-59.0); NPs 41.2% (21.9-63.7)]. Barriers included time, workload and capacity to undertake screening activities, although training to diagnose and manage AF was a required facilitator.
conclusionInner-city general practices were found to have adequate access to resources for AF screening. There is enthusiasm by non-GP HCPs to up-skill in the diagnosis and management of AF and they may have a role in future AF screening. However, organisational barriers, such as lack of time, staff and capacity, should be overcome for AF screening to be feasibly implemented within primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.