Qualitative interviews reveal patients' and physicians' views on smartwatch-based detection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, highlighting barriers and needs.
Introduction The potential application of wearable technology solutions for detecting out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is increasingly explored to enhance survival outcomes, but questions related to device accuracy, psychological well-being, privacy, and equal access need to be sorted out before implementation in clinical care and society. This qualitative interview study investigates patients’ and physicians’ perspectives on end-user needs, preferences, and potential barriers to smartwatch-based OHCA detection. Methods During the first cycle, 17 patients with elevated OHCA risk were interviewed individually (N=8) or with their partner (N=9). The second cycle consisted of interviews with 18 physicians, including cardiologists (N=9), and other physicians involved in the clinical care of OHCA: general physicians (N=3), intensivists (N=3) and neurologists (N=3). Verbatim interview transcripts were inductively coded for thematic analysis. Results Five overarching themes were derived: (1) acceptance, use and optimal informed consent; (2) identifying the target population; (3) technology-related barriers, such as false alarms, localisation and locked doors; (4) design preferences related to privacy, comfort, and hardware alternatives; and (5) public-private partnerships, costs and equitable access. Discussion This study is the first to explore the perspectives of patients and physicians on smartwatch-based OHCA detection using qualitative analysis of interview data. The results provide important building blocks for the ethically and psychologically sound development and implementation of smartwatch-based OHCA detection in clinical practice, taking the social context into account. The availability of OHCA detection using wearable devices to a wide range of people requires further attention, with emphasis on populations at elevated risk of cardiac arrhythmias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eversdijk et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: