Back

Prescribed Cardiac Wearables in Routine Care: a qualitative study of Patient Experiences

Zeng, A.; O'Hagan, E. T.; Trivedi, R.; Ford, B.; Perry, T.; Turnbull, S.; Sheahen, B.; Mulley, J.; Sedhom, M.; Choy, C.; Biasi, A.; Walters, S.; Miranda, J. J.; Chow, C. K.; Laranjo, L.

2026-04-11 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.04.09.26350550 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Continuous adhesive patch electrocardiographic (ECG) wearables are increasingly prescribed. Patient experience with these devices can influence adherence, but research in this area is limited. This study aimed to explore the perceptions and experiences of patients receiving wearable cardiac monitoring technology as part of their routine care through the lens of treatment burden. Methods: This was a qualitative study with semi-structured phone interviews conducted between February and May 2024. We recruited participants from primary care and outpatient clinics using maximum variation sampling to ensure diversity in sex, ethnicity, and education levels. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Sixteen participants (mean age 51 years, 63% female) were interviewed (average duration: 33 minutes). Three themes were developed: 1) ?Experience using the device: Burden vs Ease of Use?, which captured participants? perceptions of how easily they could integrate the device in their daily lives; 2) ?Individual variability in responses to ECG self-monitoring? covered participants? emotional and cognitive response to knowing their heart rhythm was monitored; and 3) ?The care process shapes patient experiences? reflected support preferences during the set-up and monitoring period and the uncertainty regarding timely clinical and device feedback. Conclusions: Patients valued cardiac wearables for facilitating diagnosis and felt reassured knowing they were clinically monitored. However, gaps in information provided to patients seemed to cause anxiety for some participants. These concerns could be mitigated through clearer clinician communication and patient education at the time of prescription.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
2
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.6%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.3%
5
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
7
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
8
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
9
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
10
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
11
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
12
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
13
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
14
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
15
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
16
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
17
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
18
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
19
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
20
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
22
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
25
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 76%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.5%
28
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
29
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
30
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%