ArticleBMJ open2026
Australian key stakeholder views regarding implementation of atrial fibrillation screening: a qualitative evaluation.
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, 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.
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, 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo understand the issues impacting atrial fibrillation (AF) screening and what needs to be considered for a successful national screening programme in Australia.
designQualitative design using semistructured interviews and thematic analysis.
settingAustralian Health.
participantsSix broad stakeholder groups were identified: charities/patient support, healthcare providers, professional bodies, government, research (including Indigenous health) and industry.
methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 25 representative participants. Iterative thematic analysis was used. Coding was driven by the research questions (the current context; is a national screening programme warranted and approaches to a national screening programme) and an inductive approach where novel groupings of information were identified.
findingsThe key findings are grouped into four areas. (1) Current opportunistic general practitioner-led screening is ad hoc and fragmented. ISSUES: poor remuneration; lack of health sector collaboration and prioritisation; consumers lack awareness. (2) Systematic screening of all in-scope patients not considered feasible and concerns over lack of evidence. (3) Alternative approaches to increase screening include innovative approaches inside and outside general practice and use of smart technology. (4) Recommendations: (a) Support general practices and address remuneration and workflows; (b) Ensure a clear pathway to treatment; (c) Address data security, management and integration and sensitivity issues with wearable devices; (d) Promote collaboration between key organisations; (e) Address research gaps and (f) Generate culturally appropriate consumer education to promote consumer demand.
conclusionsMost stakeholders were broadly supportive of AF screening but agreed that current approaches were fragmented and not sufficient. If the forthcoming research evidence supports screening effectiveness on major outcomes, stakeholders envisaged a semi-systematic approach tailored to specific health settings, rather than a formalised systematic national screening programme.
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.