To explore patients’ experiences and perspectives on using a direct-to-consumer smartwatch with single-lead electrocardiography (1L-ECG) for ambulatory rhythm diagnostics in primary care.
Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis.
Primary care patients referred for ambulatory rhythm monitoring in a diagnostic centre.
Eighteen adults with paroxysmal palpitations, of whom nine were female patients (50%), aged 32–85 (median 66) years.
Participants simultaneously wore a smartwatch with 1L-ECG capability (Withings ScanWatch) and a conventional Holter monitor for 7 days.
Patient experiences and perceived barriers and facilitators to smartwatch use for rhythm monitoring, reported after the monitoring period.
Patients found the smartwatch more user-friendly and feasible than the Holter monitor. Difficulties included uncertainty about when to initiate recordings, challenges capturing brief episodes and anxiety triggered by automated algorithm outputs. Participants emphasised the importance of accessible healthcare support for interpretation and reassurance.
This study shows that smartwatch-based 1L-ECG monitoring is feasible and acceptable for ambulatory rhythm diagnostics in primary care. Prior to routine implementation, it is crucial to address the identified challenges: particularly anxiety related to algorithm results, uncertainty about when to record and accessible clinician support.
European cardiovascular guidelines recommend systematic atrial fibrillation (AF) screening in community-dwelling high-risk patients. However, little is known about the impact of abnormal screening findings, including AF and non-AF incidental findings on the target population. This gap highlights the need to assess both the benefits and potential harms from patients’ perspectives to fully understand the impact of AF screening. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore patients’ experiences with AF screening among those who received abnormal findings from ambulatory ECG monitoring.
We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews, analysed thematically. Participants in the PATCH-AF trial, based in Amsterdam primary care, were purposively sampled based on their screening results (AF or non-AF incidental findings), sex and socioeconomic status.
We achieved data saturation after conducting 16 interviews (6 with interviewees diagnosed with AF and 10 with non-AF incidental findings). Participants had a median age of 76 (73–79) years, and 56% were male. Their experiences, whether positive or negative, fluctuated throughout the screening process and depended on their initial motivations for participation in AF screening (seeking extra health checks, finding explanations for pre-existing symptoms or contributing to medical research), expectations and perceived benefits from clarification, diagnostic workup or treatment. Influencing factors included the type of finding (AF or non-AF incidental finding), healthcare provider communication and individual characteristics such as age, socioeconomic status and medical history.
This qualitative study highlights both positive and negative AF screening experiences from the patients’ perspective. It underscores how patients’ motivations and expectations for participation, the type of ambulatory ECG finding and communication and follow-up by healthcare providers shape their overall experiences. Healthcare providers should be aware of these factors to optimise screening consultations. Clear guidelines on communicating abnormal ambulatory ECG findings, especially incidental findings, are warranted.
The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) number NL9656.