ArticleBMJ open2024
Stakeholder perspectives on contributors to delayed and inaccurate diagnosis of cardiovascular disease and their implications for digital health technologies: a UK-based qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to understand stakeholder experiences of diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) to support the development of technological solutions that meet current needs. Specifically, we aimed to identify challenges in the process of diagnosing CVD, to identify discrepancies between patient and clinician experiences of CVD diagnosis, and to identify the requirements of future health technology solutions intended to improve CVD diagnosis.
designSemistructured focus groups and one-to-one interviews to generate qualitative data that were subjected to thematic analysis.
participantsUK-based individuals (N=32) with lived experience of diagnosis of CVD (n=23) and clinicians with experience in diagnosing CVD (n=9).
resultsWe identified four key themes related to delayed or inaccurate diagnosis of CVD: symptom interpretation, patient characteristics, patient-clinician interactions and systemic challenges. Subthemes from each are discussed in depth. Challenges related to time and communication were greatest for both stakeholder groups; however, there were differences in other areas, for example, patient experiences highlighted difficulties with the psychological aspects of diagnosis and interpreting ambiguous symptoms, while clinicians emphasised the role of individual patient differences and the lack of rapport in contributing to delays or inaccurate diagnosis.
conclusionsOur findings highlight key considerations when developing digital technologies that seek to improve the efficiency and accuracy of diagnosis of CVD.
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.