SynthesisEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Key stakeholder views on atrial fibrillation screening: a systematic mixed-studies review and interpretive analysis.
Synthesis in 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, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is the future of atrial fibrillation screening a landscape without humans?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 · 2026Article
- Australian key stakeholder views regarding implementation of atrial fibrillation screening: a qualitative evaluation.BMJ open · 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
Abstract
aimsIt is essential to understand the key barriers and stakeholder needs related to screening to focus efforts for designing appropriate programmes. Therefore, this study aimed to synthesize the existing literature to understand the pertinent concepts and requirements from key stakeholders regarding implementation of atrial fibrillation (AF) screening. METHODS AND
resultsDatabase searches were run in MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL via Ebsco, PsycInfo via Ebsco, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection using specified keywords; supplemented by Google and grey literature searches. Original research papers were included if they contained stakeholder views on implementation of AF screening. A critical interpretive synthesis of data was performed. From 13 332 titles/abstracts, 105 full texts were reviewed and 34 papers included (16 qualitative; 8 surveys; 10 mixed-methods). Significant evidence gaps were identified related to systematic and population-wide screening programmes; and views from system-level stakeholders/key decision-makers. The key themes were: (i) VALUE, BENEFITS AND RISKS OF SCREENING: Stakeholders were cautiously optimistic, liked enhanced practice roles; and positive about health benefits. Concerns raised about potential risks/harms (e.g. anticoagulation), worry for patients, and increased burden for the practice/healthcare system. (ii) PERSPECTIVES ON APPROPRIATE MODELS: Systematic screening not supported by evidence; risk-based approaches suggested; handheld electrocardiogram perceived as quick and easy-to-use; concerns raised over direct-to-consumer devices. (iii) FACTORS IMPACTING IMPLEMENTATION WITHIN HEALTHCARE SETTINGS: Time constraints, impact on workflow, remuneration/reimbursement, and data systems and data security problems were the most common barriers. (iv) SYSTEMIC BARRIERS: These included the need for evidence of benefit; clear guidelines and pathways; adequate remuneration/reimbursement; importance of inter-agency collaboration; software; and access and inclusivity for all patients.
conclusionAtrial fibrillation screening is acceptable however definitive evidence regarding need and harms is required. Implementation will require collaboration across healthcare sectors; local solutions; equitable access; remuneration/reimbursement; defined responsibilities and clear pathways; consideration of integration of complex systems; and data security solutions. Given the central importance of system-level barriers, more research is needed on the perspectives and needs of system-level stakeholders, key decision-makers, and consumer groups. Additionally, further research is required to identify strategies for how to address barriers in specific healthcare jurisdictions. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023400110).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.