ArticleBMJ open2025
Impact of abnormal ambulatory ECG findings when screening for atrial fibrillation in primary care: a qualitative study among participants of the PATCH-AF trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
BACKGROUND AND
aimEuropean cardiovascular guidelines recommend systematic atrial fibrillation (AF) screening in community-dwelling high-risk patients. However, little is known about the impact of abnormal screening findings, including AF and non-AF incidental findings on the target population. This gap highlights the need to assess both the benefits and potential harms from patients' perspectives to fully understand the impact of AF screening. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore patients' experiences with AF screening among those who received abnormal findings from ambulatory ECG monitoring.
designWe conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews, analysed thematically. Participants in the PATCH-AF trial, based in Amsterdam primary care, were purposively sampled based on their screening results (AF or non-AF incidental findings), sex and socioeconomic status.
resultsWe achieved data saturation after conducting 16 interviews (6 with interviewees diagnosed with AF and 10 with non-AF incidental findings). Participants had a median age of 76 (73-79) years, and 56% were male. Their experiences, whether positive or negative, fluctuated throughout the screening process and depended on their initial motivations for participation in AF screening (seeking extra health checks, finding explanations for pre-existing symptoms or contributing to medical research), expectations and perceived benefits from clarification, diagnostic workup or treatment. Influencing factors included the type of finding (AF or non-AF incidental finding), healthcare provider communication and individual characteristics such as age, socioeconomic status and medical history.
conclusionThis qualitative study highlights both positive and negative AF screening experiences from the patients' perspective. It underscores how patients' motivations and expectations for participation, the type of ambulatory ECG finding and communication and follow-up by healthcare providers shape their overall experiences. Healthcare providers should be aware of these factors to optimise screening consultations. Clear guidelines on communicating abnormal ambulatory ECG findings, especially incidental findings, are warranted. TRIAL REGISTERATION NUMBER: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) number NL9656.
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.