Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36175861›Full record

Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2022

Patient-initiated cardiovascular monitoring with commercially available devices: How useful is it in a cardiology outpatient setting? Mixed methods, observational study.

Christine A'Court, Wilfred Jenkins, Claire Reidy, Chrysanthi Papoutsi

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

7 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christine A'CourtNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Wilfred JenkinsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Claire ReidyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Chrysanthi PapoutsiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. chrysanthi.papoutsi@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1189-7100
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe availability, affordability and utilisation of commercially available self-monitoring devices is increasing, but their impact on routine clinical decision-making remains little explored. We sought to examine how patient-generated cardiovascular data influenced clinical evaluation in UK cardiology outpatient clinics and to understand clinical attitudes and experiences with using data from commercially available self-monitoring devices.

methodsMixed methods study combining: a) quantitative and qualitative content analysis of 1373 community cardiology clinic letters, recording consultations between January-September 2020 including periods with different Covid-19 related restrictions, and b) semi-structured qualitative interviews and group discussions with 20 cardiology-affiliated clinicians at the same NHS Trust.

resultsPatient-generated cardiovascular data were described in 185/1373 (13.5%) clinic letters overall, with the proportion doubling following onset of the first Covid-19 lockdown in England, from 8.3% to 16.6% (p < 0.001). In 127/185 (69%) cases self-monitored data were found to: provide or facilitate cardiac diagnoses (34/127); assist management of previously diagnosed cardiac conditions (55/127); be deployed for cardiovascular prevention (16/127); or be recommended for heart rhythm evaluation (10/127). In 58/185 (31%) cases clinicians did not put the self-monitored data to any evident use and in 12/185 (6.5%) cases patient-generated data prompted an unnecessary referral. In interviews and discussions, clinicians expressed mixed views on patient-generated data but foresaw a need to embrace and plan for this information flow, and proactively address challenges with integration into traditional care pathways.

conclusionsThis study suggests patient-generated data are being used for clinical decision-making in ad hoc and opportunistic ways. Given shifts towards remote monitoring in clinical care, accelerated by the pandemic, there is a need to consider how best to incorporate patient-generated data in clinical processes, introduce relevant training, pathways and governance frameworks, and manage associated risks.

Indexed as

CardiologyCardiovascular SystemCOVID-19Communicable Disease ControlHumansOutpatientsArrhythmiasAtrial fibrillationDigital healthRemote monitoringSelf-monitoring

Identifiers

PMID36175861
PMCPMC9520849
OpenAlexW4298001440

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.