E-resources
Peer reviewed
Open access
-
Engler, Daniel; Hanson, Coral L; Desteghe, Lien; Boriani, Giuseppe; Diederichsen, Søren Zöga; Freedman, Ben; Palà, Elena; Potpara, Tatjana S; Witt, Henning; Heidbuchel, Hein; Neubeck, Lis; Schnabel, Renate B
BMJ open, 06/2022, Volume: 12, Issue: 6Journal Article
ObjectivesAtrial fibrillation (AF) screening may increase early detection and reduce complications of AF. European, Australian and World Heart Federation guidelines recommend opportunistic screening, despite a current lack of clear evidence supporting a net benefit for systematic screening. Where screening is implemented, the most appropriate approaches are unknown. We explored the views of European stakeholders about opportunities and challenges of implementing four AF screening scenarios.DesignTelephone-based semi-structured interviews with results reported using Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research guidelines. Data were thematically analysed using the framework approach.SettingAF screening stakeholders in 11 European countries.ParticipantsHealthcare professionals and regulators (n=24) potentially involved in AF screening implementation.InterventionFour AF screening scenarios: single time point opportunistic, opportunistic prolonged, systematic single time point/prolonged and patient-led screening.Primary outcome measuresStakeholder views about the challenges and feasibility of implementing the screening scenarios in the respective national/regional healthcare system.ResultsThree themes developed. (1) Current screening approaches: there are no national AF screening programmes, with most AF detected in symptomatic patients. Patient-led screening exists via personal devices, creating screening inequity. (2) Feasibility of screening: single time point opportunistic screening in primary care using single-lead ECG devices was considered the most feasible. Software algorithms may aid identification of suitable patients and telehealth services have potential to support diagnosis. (3) Implementation requirements: sufficient evidence of benefit is required. National screening processes are required due to different payment mechanisms and health service regulations. Concerns about data security, and inclusivity for those without primary care access or personal devices must be addressed.ConclusionsThere is an overall awareness of AF screening. Opportunistic screening appears the most feasible across Europe. Challenges are health inequalities, identification of best target groups for screening, streamlined processes, the need for evidence of benefit and a tailored approach adapted to national realities.
![loading ... loading ...](themes/default/img/ajax-loading.gif)
Shelf entry
Permalink
- URL:
Impact factor
Access to the JCR database is permitted only to users from Slovenia. Your current IP address is not on the list of IP addresses with access permission, and authentication with the relevant AAI accout is required.
Year | Impact factor | Edition | Category | Classification | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP |
Select the library membership card:
If the library membership card is not in the list,
add a new one.
DRS, in which the journal is indexed
Database name | Field | Year |
---|
Links to authors' personal bibliographies | Links to information on researchers in the SICRIS system |
---|
Source: Personal bibliographies
and: SICRIS
The material is available in full text. If you wish to order the material anyway, click the Continue button.