ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in the general population may help identify individuals at risk, enabling further assessment of risk factors and institution of appropriate treatment. Algorithms deployed on wearable technologies such as smartwatches and fitness bands may be trained to screen for such arrhythmias. However, their performance needs to be assessed for safety and accuracy prior to wide-scale implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will assess the ability of the WHOOP strap to detect AF using its WHOOP Arrhythmia Notification Feature (WARN) algorithm in an enriched cohort with a 2:1 distribution of previously diagnosed AF (persistent and paroxysmal) and healthy controls. Recruited participants will collect data for 7 days with the WHOOP wrist-strap and BioTel ePatch (electrocardiography gold-standard). Primary outcome will be participant level sensitivity and specificity of the WARN algorithm in detecting AF in analysable windows compared with the ECG gold-standard. Similar analyses will be performed on an available epoch-level basis as well as comparison of these findings in important subgroups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the ethics board at the study site. Participants will be enrolled after signing an online informed consent document. Updates will be shared via clinicaltrials.gov. The data obtained from the conclusion of this study will be presented in national and international conferences with publication in clinical research journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05809362.
Subject(s)
Algorithms , Atrial Fibrillation , Wearable Electronic Devices , Humans , Atrial Fibrillation/diagnosis , Electrocardiography , Male , Female , Observational Studies as Topic , Middle Aged , Adult , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/diagnosisABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Human behavior and more specifically behavioral insight-based approaches to vaccine uptake have often been overlooked. While there have been a few narrative reviews indexed in Medline on behavioral interventions to increase vaccine uptake, to our knowledge, none have been systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering not just high but also low-and-middle income countries. METHODS: We included 613 studies from the Medline database in our systematic review and meta-analysis categorizing different behavioral interventions in 9 domains: education campaigns, on-site vaccination, incentives, free vaccination, institutional recommendation, provider recommendation, reminder and recall, message framing, and vaccine champion. Additionally, considering that there is variability in the acceptance of vaccines among different populations, we assessed studies from both high-income countries (HICs) and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), separately. FINDINGS: Our results showed that behavioral interventions can considerably improve vaccine uptake in most settings. All domains that we examined improved vaccine uptake with the highest effect size associated with provider recommendation (OR: 3.4 (95%CI: 2.5-4.6); Domain: motivation) and on-site vaccination (OR: 2.9 (95%CI: 2.3-3.7); Domain: practical issues). While the number of studies conducted in LMICs was smaller, the quality of studies was similar with those conducted in HICs. Nevertheless, there were variations in the observed effect sizes. INTERPRETATION: Our findings indicate that "provider recommendation" and "on-site vaccination" along with other behavioral interventions can be employed to increase vaccination rates globally.