Why do people take part in atrial fibrillation screening? Qualitative interview study in English primary care

Risk-based screening for the evaluation of atrial fibrillation in general practice (R-BEAT): a randomized cross-over trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach to the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation in primary care is unclear.

AIM

To determine if external loop recorder (ELR) screening improves atrial fibrillation detection in community-dwelling adults with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of greater than two.

DESIGN

Randomized cross-over clinical trial.

METHODS

Community-dwelling adults ≥55 years with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of greater than two, who were deemed suitable for atrial fibrillation screening and oral anticoagulation by their general practitioner were randomly assigned to immediate or delayed ELR monitoring. The intervention period was ELR cardiac monitoring for 1 week and the usual care period was healthcare professional pulse screening and completion of electrocardiogram (ECG) or cardiac rhythm strip if pulse was identified as irregular.

RESULTS

Of the 488 participants randomized, 244 were assigned to the immediate monitoring period (intervention) and 244 were assigned to the delayed monitoring period. Mean (SD) age was 75.0 (7.0) years and 333 participants were women (68%). Atrial fibrillation was detected in 32 of 488 participants (6.6%) in the intervention period versus five of 488 (1%) in the usual care period (absolute difference, 5.53% (3.2-7.9%), P < 0.001; number needed to screen 15 (11-23)). Twelve cases (37.5%) of ELR-detected atrial fibrillation were greater than 24 h in duration. Oral anticoagulation was initiated in all participants (n = 32).

CONCLUSIONS

Among older community-dwelling adults with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of greater than two, screening with ELR for one week was associated with a 5.5% incremental detection of new atrial fibrillation over usual care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Register: NCT03911986.

Perceptions of healthcare professionals on the use of a risk prediction model to inform atrial fibrillation screening: qualitative interview study in English primary care

OBJECTIVES

There is increasing interest in guiding atrial fibrillation (AF) screening by risk rather than age. The perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards the implementation of risk prediction models to target AF screening are unknown. We aimed to explore HCP perceptions about using risk prediction models for this purpose, and how models could be implemented.

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews with HCPs engaged in the Future Innovations in Novel Detection of AF (FIND-AF) study. Data were thematically analysed and synthesised to understand barriers and facilitators to AF screening and guiding screening using risk assessment.

SETTING

Five primary care practices in England taking part in the FIND-AF study.

PARTICIPANTS

15 HCPs (doctors, nurses/nurse practitioners, healthcare assistants, receptionists and practice managers).

RESULTS

Participants knew the health implications of AF and were supportive of the risk prediction models for AF screening. Four main themes developed: (1) health implications of AF, (2) positives and negatives of risk prediction in AF screening, (3) strategies to implement a risk prediction model and (4) barriers and facilitators to risk-guided AF screening. HCPs thought risk-guided AF screening would improve patient outcomes by reducing AF-related stroke, and this outweighed concerns over health anxiety and the impact on workload. Pop-up notifications and practice worklists were the main suggestions for risk-guided screening implementation and for this to be predominantly run by administrative staff. Many recommended the need for educating staff on AF and the prediction models to help aid the implementation of a clear protocol for longitudinal follow-up of high-risk patients and communication of risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, HCPs participating in the FIND-AF study were supportive of using risk prediction to guide AF screening and willing to take on extra workload to facilitate risk-guided AF screening. The best pathway design and the method of how risk is communicated to patients require further consideration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05898165.

Acceptability of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a community-based CT screening programme for lung cancer: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies to community-based CT screening for lung cancer within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). This study explored the acceptability of the combined screening approach to participants and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the trial.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with eight HCPs and 25 participants returning for the second round of scanning within YLST, 20 who had taken up the offer of the additional abdominal CT scan and five who had declined. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.

RESULTS

Overall, combining the offer of a non-contrast abdominal CT scan alongside the low-dose thoracic CT was considered acceptable to participants, including those who had declined the abdominal scan. The offer of the additional scan made sense and fitted well within the process, and participants could see benefits in terms of efficiency, cost and convenience both for themselves as individuals and also more widely for the NHS. Almost all participants made an instant decision at the point of initial invitation based more on trust and emotions than the information provided. Despite this, there was a clear desire for more time to decide whether to accept the scan or not. HCPs also raised concerns about the burden on the study team and wider healthcare system arising from additional workload both within the screening process and downstream following findings on the abdominal CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to community-based CT screening for lung cancer is acceptable to both participants and healthcare professionals. Giving potential participants prior notice and having clear pathways for downstream management of findings will be important if it is to be offered more widely.

Why do people choose not to take part in screening? Qualitative interview study of atrial fibrillation screening nonparticipation

INTRODUCTION

While screening uptake is variable, many individuals feel they 'ought' to participate in screening programmes to aid the detection of conditions amenable to early treatment. Those not taking part in screening are often presented as either hindered by practical or social barriers or personally at fault. Why some people choose not to participate receives less consideration.

METHODS

We explored screening nonparticipation by examining the accounts of participants who chose not to participate in screening offered by a national research trial of atrial fibrillation (AF) screening in England (SAFER: Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke). AF is a heart arrhythmia that increases in prevalence with age and increases the risk of stroke. Systematic screening for AF is not a nationally adopted programme within the United Kingdom; it provides a unique opportunity to explore screening nonparticipation outside of the norms and values attached to existing population-based screening programmes. We interviewed people aged over 65 (n = 50) who declined an invitation from SAFER and analysed their accounts thematically.

RESULTS

Beyond practical reasons for nonparticipation, interviewees challenged the utility of identifying and managing AF earlier. Many questioned the benefits of screening at their age. The trial's presentation of the screening as research made it feel voluntary-something they could legitimately decline.

CONCLUSION

Nonparticipants were not resistant to engaging in health-promoting behaviours, uninformed about screening or unsupportive of its potential benefits. Instead, their consideration of the perceived necessity, legitimacy and utility of this screening shaped their decision not to take part.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The SAFER programme is guided by four patient and carer representatives. The representatives are embedded within the team (e.g., one is a co-applicant, another sits on the programme steering committee) and by participating in regular meetings advise on all aspects of the design, management and delivery of the programme, including engaging with interpreting and disseminating the findings. For the qualitative workstream, we established a supplementary patient and public involvement group with whom we regularly consult about research design questions.

Patients' Perspectives on Commencing Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: An Exploratory Qualitative Descriptive Study

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in order to lower stroke risk. However, patient refusal to commence OACs hinders effective anticoagulation. This study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to patient agreement to commence OACs from the perspectives of patients with AF attending Australian general practices.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive study utilising semi-structured individual interviews was conducted from March to July 2022.

RESULTS

Ten patients (60% male, median age = 78.5 years) completed interviews. Patients' passive roles in decision-making were identified as a facilitator. Other prominent facilitators included doctors explaining adequately and aligning their recommendations with patients' overall health goals, including the prevention of stroke and associated disabilities, and a clear understanding of the pros and cons of taking OACs. Reportedly insufficient explanation from doctors and the inconvenience associated with taking warfarin were identified as potential barriers.

CONCLUSION

Addressing factors that influence patient agreement to commence OACs should be an essential aspect of quality improvement interventions. Subsequent studies should also delve into the perspectives of eligible patients with AF who choose not to commence OACs as well as the perspectives of both patients and doctors regarding the decision to continue OAC treatment.

Screening for undiagnosed atrial fibrillation using a single-lead electrocardiogram at primary care visits: patient uptake and practitioner perspectives from the VITAL-AF trial

BACKGROUND

Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) is appealing because AF is common, when undiagnosed may increase stroke risk, and stroke is preventable with anticoagulants. This study assessed patient and primary care practitioner (PCP) acceptability of screening for AF using a 30-s single-lead electrocardiogram (SL-ECG) during outpatient visits.

METHODS

Secondary analyses of a cluster randomized trial. All patients ≥ 65 years old without prevalent AF seen during a 1-year period and their PCPs. Screening using a SL-ECG was performed by medical assistants during check-in at 8 intervention sites among verbally consenting patients. PCPs were notified of "possible AF" results; management was left to their discretion. Control practices continued with usual care. Following the trial, PCPs were surveyed about AF screening. Outcomes included screening uptake and results, and PCP preferences for screening.

RESULTS

Fifteen thousand three hundred ninety three patients were seen in intervention practices (mean age 73.9 years old, 59.7% female). Screening occurred at 78% of 38,502 individual encounters, and 91% of patients completed ≥ 1 screening. The positive predictive value of a "Possible AF" result (4.7% of SL-ECG tracings) at an encounter prior to a new AF diagnosis was 9.5%. Same-day 12-lead ECGs were slightly more frequent among intervention (7.0%) than control (6.2%) encounters (p = 0.07). Among the 208 PCPs completing a survey (73.6%; 78.9% intervention, 67.7% control), most favored screening for AF (87.2% vs. 83.6%, respectively), though SL-ECG screening was favored by intervention PCPs (86%) while control PCPs favored pulse palpation (65%). Both groups were less certain if AF screening should be done outside of office visits with patch monitors (47% unsure) or consumer devices (54% unsure).

CONCLUSIONS

Though the benefits and harms of screening for AF remain uncertain, most older patients underwent screening and PCPs were able to manage SL-ECG results, supporting the feasibility of routine primary care screening. PCPs exposed to a SL-ECG device preferred it over pulse palpation. PCPs were largely uncertain about AF screening done outside of practice visits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03515057. Registered May 3, 2018.

Review of current ECG consumer electronics (pros and cons)

BACKGROUND

Several wearable, medical-grade consumer ECG devices are now available and integrated into consumer electronics like multi sensor fitness watches and scales. Specific consumer ECGs can also come in the form of patches or thin sensor plates in credit card or other shapes. Watches with ECG capabilities are often multi vital sign sensor devices. The majority of these devices are usually connected to a mobile smartphone. However, there are pros and cons to their use.

METHODS

We review here an exemplary selection of modern consumer ECG devices based on device type, recording method and the number of standard ECG channels derived.

RESULTS

Single-channel consumer ECG devices such as Smart Watches can be useful for detecting and monitoring atrial fibrillation and flutter and other arrhythmias, as well as ectopic complexes. However, they are currently limited with respect to recording duration and information content (a single-channel or limb‑lead ECG having less diagnostic information than a 12‑lead ECG). While some non watch-based consumer ECG devices can now record all 6 limb leads to yield increased information, no consumer ECG devices can currently reliably detect ST-segment deviations, potentially indicating myocardial infarction or ischemic episodes. Moreover, barriers to use still exist for at-risk elderly people. Finally, there currently is no universal data exchange format.

CONCLUSION

Consumer ECG devices, whether in fitness or fashionable design, allow for reliable detection of atrial fibrillation. Timely detection of atrial fibrillation and subsequent treatment might protect against stroke, especially in high-risk groups, yet prospective evidence is still lacking. Six-channel consumer ECG and longer data collection capabilities extend potential functionality, including for the monitoring of ST-segments and QT intervals. However, no currently available devices are sufficiently suitable for the detection of myocardial infarction or ischemia, which is why portable 12-channel technologies are desirable. For the reliable detection of a myocardial infarction, the determination of specific myocardial infarction blood markers and evaluation of patient medical history still is indispensable in addition to the 12 lead ECG.

General practitioners' perceptions on opportunistic single-time point screening for atrial fibrillation: A European quantitative survey

Background

There is no clear guidance on how to implement opportunistic atrial fibrillation (AF) screening in daily clinical practice.

Objectives

This study evaluated the perception of general practitioners (GPs) about value and practicalities of implementing screening for AF, focusing on opportunistic single-time point screening with a single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) device.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with a survey developed to assess overall perception concerning AF screening, feasibility of opportunistic single-lead ECG screening and implementation requirements and barriers.

Results

A total of 659 responses were collected (36.1% Eastern, 33.4% Western, 12.1% Southern, 10.0% Northern Europe, 8.3% United Kingdom & Ireland). The perceived need for standardized AF screening was rated as 82.7 on a scale from 0 to 100. The vast majority (88.0%) indicated no AF screening program is established in their region. Three out of four GPs (72.1%, lowest in Eastern and Southern Europe) were equipped with a 12-lead ECG, while a single-lead ECG was less common (10.8%, highest in United Kingdom & Ireland). Three in five GPs (59.3%) feel confident ruling out AF on a single-lead ECG strip. Assistance through more education (28.7%) and a tele-healthcare service offering advice on ambiguous tracings (25.2%) would be helpful. Preferred strategies to overcome barriers like insufficient (qualified) staff, included integrating AF screening with other healthcare programs (24.9%) and algorithms to identify patients most suitable for AF screening (24.3%).

Conclusion

GPs perceive a strong need for a standardized AF screening approach. Additional resources may be required to have it widely adopted into clinical practice.