mHealth and wearable AF tools are viewed by clinicians as beneficial when integrated into workflows, though they raise concerns about ambiguous data, cognitive load, and patient inequities.
Systematic Review (n=7)
Clinicians recognize the potential of digital AF detection tools but emphasize the need for clearer pathways, workflow integration, and equity-focused design to ensure meaningful adoption.
Abstract Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) requires continuous monitoring and proactive prevention of complications such as stroke and symptomatic deterioration. Mobile health (mHealth) apps and wearable technologies are increasingly used to support rhythm tracking, anticoagulation adherence, and symptom monitoring. Clinician acceptance is essential for their safe and effective integration, yet healthcare professionals’ experiences with AF-focused digital tools remain fragmented. Purpose To synthesise healthcare professionals’ perspectives on mHealth apps and wearable technologies used in AF care. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were systematically searched for studies reporting healthcare professionals’ views on mHealth, wearable ECG, or handheld/mobile ECG tools used for AF detection or monitoring. A total of 360 records were screened, and eligible studies included qualitative or mixed-methods designs with extractable clinician perspectives. Data from the Results/Findings sections were qualitatively synthesised. Studies were appraised using COREQ. The review is registered with PROSPERO. This is a preliminary synthesis; full analysis is ongoing. Results Seven studies were included, yielding four overarching themes. (1) Conditional trust in digital data: Clinicians trusted handheld ECGs, wearables and AF apps when they produced clear rhythm tracings aligned with diagnostic pathways, but were cautious of ambiguous or high-volume patient-generated recordings. (2) Reconfigured work and responsibility: Digital tools added new screening, triage and interpretation tasks, often for nursing or pharmacy staff, while increasing the cognitive load of managing patient data, with ultimate responsibility remaining on clinicians. (3) Patient capacity as a determinant of utility: Usefulness depended on patient motivation, digital literacy, age and support, raising concerns that digital monitoring may exacerbate inequities among older or underserved groups. (4) Need for integrated digital ecosystems: Clinicians viewed digital tools as beneficial only when integrated into workflows through EHR linkage, clear protocols and feedback loops, rather than functioning as standalone devices. Reporting quality was moderate, with strong methodological descriptions but limited reflexivity across studies. Conclusion Clinicians recognise the potential of digital AF detection tools but emphasise the need for clearer pathways, workflow integration and equity-focused design to ensure meaningful adoption.For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text. For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.
Malik et al. (Mon,) conducted a systematic review in Atrial fibrillation (n=7). mHealth apps and wearable technologies was evaluated on Healthcare professionals' perspectives and themes regarding digital AF tools. mHealth and wearable AF tools are viewed by clinicians as beneficial when integrated into workflows, though they raise concerns about ambiguous data, cognitive load, and patient inequities.