Trial reportBMJ open2025
Usability and acceptability of ambulatory monitoring in undiagnosed syncope: insights from the ASPIRED-Q qualitative study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study, which was embedded into the ASPIRED randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN10278811), was to explore patient and healthcare professional usability and acceptability of an enhanced (14-day) ambulatory ECG monitoring patch to manage and facilitate discharge of emergency department patients with unexplained syncope.
designA qualitative study using semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and mapped using the theoretical framework of acceptability.
participantsA sample of 20 syncope patients recruited to the ASPIRED RCT and 10 healthcare professionals who had a direct care provider and clinical decision role for syncope patients (eg, consultants, junior doctors, advanced nurse practitioners, advanced care practitioners, emergency nurse practitioners and physician associates) were recruited from four hospitals (two in England and two in Scotland) between February 2023 and January 2024.
resultsThree overarching themes developed that mapped to six of the seven constructs within the theoretical framework of acceptability. The themes were: (1) Efficacy: Patients and healthcare professionals felt that the remote intervention would increase patient reassurance. Healthcare professionals perceived the intervention would improve clinical care pathways by overcoming delays for Holter monitors, but that a standard protocol would be required to ensure appropriate intervention use. (2) Burden: Patients considered that the device was non-obstructive and easy to use. However, healthcare professionals noted that although attaching the device was simple, there would be associated time and resource costs (eg, documentation). (3) Communication and education: Comprehensive verbal and written information were considered necessary to ensure that the intervention was usable by, and acceptable to, patients. Healthcare professionals suggested additional training would be required. Additionally, they considered that feedback from patient monitoring would reinforce their decision-making and improve healthcare professionals' self-efficacy to use the device appropriately.
conclusionsAn immediate, enhanced (14-day) ambulatory ECG monitoring patch was positively received by patients and offered healthcare professionals an acceptable route for monitoring emergency department patients with unexplained syncope. However, future use should be controlled using standardised pathways to prevent inappropriate use. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10278811.
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.