ArticleBMC family practice2019
Uptake of a primary care atrial fibrillation screening program (AF-SMART): a realist evaluation of implementation in metropolitan and rural general practice.
Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 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
- Considering User Experience and Behavioral Approaches in the Design of mHealth Interventions for Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Stakeholder Perspectives of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Influence of a clinical decision support system on the anticoagulation treatment knowledge, attitude and practice of general practitioners and their using experience: a mixed method study.BMC primary care · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Opportunistic screening versus usual care for detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Trial
- Logic Models on Health Information Technology-Related Interventions: Scoping Review Across Disciplines.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Australian key stakeholder views regarding implementation of atrial fibrillation screening: a qualitative evaluation.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Exploring nurse- and allied health professional-led opportunistic atrial fibrillation screening with artificial intelligence-enabled devices in community and primary care.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Use of Gamified Digital Tools in Daily Tasks of Health Care Workers: Scoping Review.JMIR serious games · 2025Review
- Article
- Global implementation and evaluation of atrial fibrillation screening in the past two decades - a narrative review.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2024Review
- Optimising a clinical decision support tool to improve chronic kidney disease management in general practice.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Prevalence of atrial fibrillation in a regional Victoria setting, findings from the crossroads studies (2001-2003 and 2016-2018).The Australian journal of rural health · 2023Article
- Increasing screening for atrial fibrillation in general practice: the Atrial Fibrillation Self-Screening, Management And guideline-Recommended Therapy (AF Self-SMART) study.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023Article
- Regional implementation of atrial fibrillation screening: benefits and pitfalls.European heart journal. Digital health · 2022Article
- Staff acceptability and patient usability of a self-screening kiosk for atrial fibrillation in general practice waiting rooms.Cardiovascular digital health journal · 2022Article
- Barriers and enablers to implementing and using clinical decision support systems for chronic diseases: a qualitative systematic review and meta-aggregation.Implementation science communications · 2022Review
- Experiences with screening for atrial fibrillation: a qualitative study in general practice.BJGP open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScreening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in people aged ≥65 years is recommended by international guidelines. The Atrial Fibrillation Screen, Management And guideline-Recommended Therapy (AF-SMART) studies of opportunistic AF screening in 16 metropolitan and rural general practices were conducted from November 2016-June 2019. These studies trialled custom-designed eHealth tools to support all stages of AF screening in general practice.
methodsA realist evaluation of the AF-SMART studies, which aimed to explain the circumstances in which the program worked (or not) to increase the proportion of people screened for AF. The initial program theory was based on our previous research, policy documents and screening studies. To test this, we conducted 45 semi-structured interviews with general practitioners (GPs), nurses and practice managers across all participating practices, and collected observational and quantitative screening data. These data were analysed and interpreted to refine the program theory.
resultsGPs/nurses liked the eHealth tools, although technical problems sometimes disrupted screening. Time was the main barrier to screening for GPs/nurses, so systems need to be very efficient. Practices with leadership from a senior GP 'screening champion' had broader uptake, especially from the nursing team. Providing regular feedback on screening data was beneficial for quality improvement and motivation. Clear protocols for follow-up of abnormal results were required for successful nurse-led screening in a hierarchical system. Participation in the program had broader benefits of improving AF knowledge and raising the profile of cardiovascular health in the practice. Screening for a shorter, more intense period (eg during influenza vaccination) worked well for practices where sufficient staff time was allocated.
conclusionsIntroducing an AF screening program is likely to be successful in contexts where there is a senior GP 'screening champion', a clear protocol exists for abnormal results, and there is regular data reporting to staff. These contexts link to mechanisms around motivation, leadership, empowerment of nurses, and efficient screening systems. The contexts and mechanisms contribute to the longer-term outcomes of increasing the proportion of people screened and treated for AF, which is recommended by guidelines as a key strategy for the prevention of AF-related stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: AF SMART (metropolitan): ACTRN12616000850471 (Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry). AF SMART II (rural): ACTRN12618000004268 (Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry).
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.