To review the literature reporting patient preferences for ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring (AHRM) and what factors affect experience and engagement.

The prevalence of arrhythmia continues to rise and contributes significantly to outpatient care burden. There is limited understanding of patient experience and compliance with monitoring. As innovative technologies are developed and healthcare strategies move towards surveillance and prevention, understanding this is key.

A scoping review was conducted using guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. The review included studies of adults under investigation or surveillance for arrhythmia with a range of devices (Holter monitor, patch device, event recorder, mobile cardiac telemetry, external and implantable loop recorders, wearables and other implantable cardiac devices) in ambulatory care settings worldwide. The final search was conducted on 3 January 2026 across Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid) and Google Scholar. Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, multiple methods and any type of review articles were included.

54 studies were eligible for inclusion from the initial search that identified 1320 articles. Two overarching themes emerged from the quantitative and qualitative data: patient factors and device factors affecting experience and engagement. Patient factors included clinical and demographic factors, education and expectations, experience and preferences and impact on daily life and healthcare. Device factors could be common to several devices, for example, skin irritation or device specific, for example, the nature of activation.

Patient and device factors influence preferences for and experience and engagement with AHRM. While existing literature is incomplete and heterogeneous, it identifies key considerations that should be integrated into the development and testing of novel approaches for arrhythmia surveillance in healthcare contexts.

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6K3W8 (Open Science Framework).

All children in England should receive a health review at 2–21/2 years, with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire third edition (ASQ-3) used to collect public health surveillance data on child development. However, practitioners also value tools that assess individual children’s development—consistent with ASQ-3’s original purpose. Concerns about licensing costs and barriers to digitalisation have prompted interest in alternative tools to the ASQ-3 in England.

To inform policy, we conducted a rapid scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines to identify tools that can measure or assess early child development.

Searched PubMed, PsycINFO and Web of Science from January 2012 to November 2022, with targeted search update November 2024.

We included English-language studies published after January 2012 that described or evaluated tools in English which could measure or assess early child development in children

We extracted key features and reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity of tools which could feasibly be implemented at the 2–21/2-year review (eg, including multiple age versions and

We identified 112 unique publications describing 34 tools; six met our feasibility criteria for the 2–21/2-year review (reported in 53 studies). Only ASQ-3 and CREDI offer domain-specific scoring—a government priority. ASQ-3 moderately detects mild delays and performs better for severe delays in at-risk groups. Caregiver Reported Early Development Instruments (CREDI) was designed for public health surveillance, and we do not yet know how it performs for individual assessment.

ASQ-3 and CREDI are most promising for use at the 2–21/2-year review. However, we lack UK-based validation and norming studies, even for ASQ-3. Ultimately, careful implementation and integration into existing systems will determine a tool’s value for identifying developmental needs, supporting families and producing high quality data for public health surveillance.