ArticleBMJ open2026
Understanding patient preferences, experiences and engagement with ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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.
- MDT-HMTL: A Multidimensional Temporal Hierarchical Multi-Task Learning Framework for Myocardial Infarction Detection and State Classification Using PPG Signals.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
objectiveTo review the literature reporting patient preferences for ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring (AHRM) and what factors affect experience and engagement.
backgroundThe prevalence of arrhythmia continues to rise and contributes significantly to outpatient care burden. There is limited understanding of patient experience and compliance with monitoring. As innovative technologies are developed and healthcare strategies move towards surveillance and prevention, understanding this is key.
methodsA scoping review was conducted using guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. The review included studies of adults under investigation or surveillance for arrhythmia with a range of devices (Holter monitor, patch device, event recorder, mobile cardiac telemetry, external and implantable loop recorders, wearables and other implantable cardiac devices) in ambulatory care settings worldwide. The final search was conducted on 3 January 2026 across Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid) and Google Scholar. Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, multiple methods and any type of review articles were included.
results54 studies were eligible for inclusion from the initial search that identified 1320 articles. Two overarching themes emerged from the quantitative and qualitative data: patient factors and device factors affecting experience and engagement. Patient factors included clinical and demographic factors, education and expectations, experience and preferences and impact on daily life and healthcare. Device factors could be common to several devices, for example, skin irritation or device specific, for example, the nature of activation.
conclusionPatient and device factors influence preferences for and experience and engagement with AHRM. While existing literature is incomplete and heterogeneous, it identifies key considerations that should be integrated into the development and testing of novel approaches for arrhythmia surveillance in healthcare contexts. REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6K3W8 (Open Science Framework).
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.