Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42807390›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026

Patient and clinician perspectives on digital tools in heart failure: results in three London hospital networks (Qual-HF).

Kyle McBeath, Jillian P Riley, Martin R Cowie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kyle McBeathCardiology Department, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9357-4692
Jillian P RileyImperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9318-783X
Martin R CowieKing's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7457-2552

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: There are limited data on the experience and perspectives of patients or clinicians about the use of digital tools (DTs, such as internet resources, social media, and smartphone apps) in heart failure (HF). This study aimed to explore patient and clinician perspectives of DT use and provide insights into the factors that facilitate or obstruct such use. Methods and results: This was a mixed-methods study using semi-structured interviews with 14 people living with HF and 9 clinicians working as HF specialists. Recorded interviews underwent thematic analysis. Three main themes emerged: 'the dual nature of information', the 'recommendation gap', and 'self-care as a time-dependent behaviour'. Patients were generally fearful of information from DTs, with many disengaging from their use as a form of self-preservation. Patients described finding the 'right' information as a struggle, and their behaviour appeared related to their level of digital health literacy and degree of activation. Recommendation of DTs by clinicians was influenced by assumptions around the digital the capability of patients, the lack of evidence-based guideline recommendations, and a lack of local or international consensus around the use of DTs. Conclusion: Many patients living with HF are anxious about online information and withdraw from using DTs. A clinician's recommendation may help, providing an 'information prescription', but is limited by assumptions about patients and lack of training, local consensus, and clear international guidance. Routine assessment of digital capability, particularly in older patients, may balance some of these assumptions and support more consistent and equitable use.

Indexed as

Digital healthDigital literacyHeart failureQualitative researchSelf-managementTechnology adoption

Identifiers

PMID42807390
PMCPMC13617663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.