ArticleBMJ open2025
Perceptions of healthcare professionals on the use of a risk prediction model to inform atrial fibrillation screening: qualitative interview study in English primary care.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05898165 (Future Innovations in Novel Detection for Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Future Innovations in Novel Detection for Atrial Fibrillation (FIND-AF): Pilot Study of a Risk Score for Early Detection of Atrial Fibrillation
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- The Anxiety-AFib connection: a systematic review of mental health and arrhythmia interactions.Global cardiology science & practice · 2026Review
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere is increasing interest in guiding atrial fibrillation (AF) screening by risk rather than age. The perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards the implementation of risk prediction models to target AF screening are unknown. We aimed to explore HCP perceptions about using risk prediction models for this purpose, and how models could be implemented.
designSemistructured interviews with HCPs engaged in the Future Innovations in Novel Detection of AF (FIND-AF) study. Data were thematically analysed and synthesised to understand barriers and facilitators to AF screening and guiding screening using risk assessment.
settingFive primary care practices in England taking part in the FIND-AF study.
participants15 HCPs (doctors, nurses/nurse practitioners, healthcare assistants, receptionists and practice managers).
resultsParticipants knew the health implications of AF and were supportive of the risk prediction models for AF screening. Four main themes developed: (1) health implications of AF, (2) positives and negatives of risk prediction in AF screening, (3) strategies to implement a risk prediction model and (4) barriers and facilitators to risk-guided AF screening. HCPs thought risk-guided AF screening would improve patient outcomes by reducing AF-related stroke, and this outweighed concerns over health anxiety and the impact on workload. Pop-up notifications and practice worklists were the main suggestions for risk-guided screening implementation and for this to be predominantly run by administrative staff. Many recommended the need for educating staff on AF and the prediction models to help aid the implementation of a clear protocol for longitudinal follow-up of high-risk patients and communication of risk.
conclusionsOverall, HCPs participating in the FIND-AF study were supportive of using risk prediction to guide AF screening and willing to take on extra workload to facilitate risk-guided AF screening. The best pathway design and the method of how risk is communicated to patients require further consideration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05898165.
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.