Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32193260›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Patients' views about screening for atrial fibrillation (AF): a qualitative study in primary care.

Mark Lown, Christopher R Wilcox, Stephanie Hughes, Miriam Santer, George Lewith, Michael Moore, Paul Little

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark LownPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK M.Lown@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8309-568X
Christopher R WilcoxPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Stephanie HughesPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Miriam SanterPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
George LewithPrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Michael MoorePrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Paul LittlePrimary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
University of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThere has been increased interest in screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) with commissioned pilot schemes, ongoing large clinical trials and the emergence of inexpensive consumer single-lead ECG devices that can be used to detect AF. This qualitative study aimed to explore patients' views and understanding of AF and AF screening to determine acceptability and inform future recommendations.

settingA single primary care practice in Hampshire, UK.

participants15 participants (11 female) were interviewed from primary care who had taken part in an AF screening trial. A semistructured interview guide was used flexibly to enable the interviewer to explore any relevant topics raised by the participants. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

resultsParticipants generally had an incomplete understanding of AF and conflated it with other heart problems or with raised blood pressure. With regards to potential drawbacks from screening, some participants considered anxiety and the cost of implementation, but none acknowledged potential harms associated with screening such as side effects of anticoagulation treatment or the risk of further investigations. The screening was generally well accepted, and participants were generally in favour of engaging with prolonged screening.

conclusionsOur study highlights that there may be poor understanding (of both the nature of AF and potential negatives of screening) among patients who have been screened for AF. Further work is required to determine if resources including decision aids can address this important knowledge gap and improve clinical informed consent for AF screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 17495003.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePrimary Health CareAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMass ScreeningQualitative Researchatrial fibrillationgeneral practicequalitative researchscreening

Identifiers

PMID32193260
PMCPMC7150591
OpenAlexW3011178350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.