Sampling of healthcare professionals' perspective on point-of-care technologies from 2019-2021: A survey of benefits, concerns, and development.

Point-of-care technology (POCT) plays a vital role in modern healthcare by providing a fast diagnosis, improving patient management, and extending healthcare access to remote and resource-limited areas. The objective of this study was to understand how healthcare professionals in the United States perceived POCTs during 2019-2021 to assess the decision-making process of implementing these newer technologies into everyday practice. A 5-point Likert scale survey was sent to respondents to evaluate their perceptions of benefits, concerns, characteristics, and development of point-of-care technologies. The 2021 survey was distributed November 1st, 2021- February 15th, 2022, with a total of 168 independent survey responses received. Of the respondents, 59% identified as male, 73% were white, and 48% have been in practice for over 20 years. The results showed that most agreed that POCTs improve patient management (94%) and improve clinician confidence in decision making (92%). Healthcare professionals were most concerned with potentially not being reimbursed for the cost of the POCT (37%). When asked to rank the top 3 important characteristics of POCT, respondents chose accuracy, ease of use, and availability. It is important to note this survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve an even greater representation of healthcare professionals' point of view on POCTs, further work to obtain responses from a larger, more diverse population of providers is needed.

Anxiety, patient activation, and quality of life among stroke survivors prescribed smartwatches for atrial fibrillation monitoring.

Background: The detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) in stroke survivors is critical to decreasing the risk of recurrent stroke. Smartwatches have emerged as a convenient and accurate means of AF diagnosis; however, the impact on critical patient-reported outcomes, including anxiety, engagement, and quality of life, remains ill defined. Objectives: To examine the association between smartwatch prescription for AF detection and the patient-reported outcomes of anxiety, patient activation, and self-reported health. Methods: We used data from the Pulsewatch trial, a 2-phase randomized controlled trial that included participants aged 50 years or older with a history of ischemic stroke. Participants were randomized to use either a proprietary smartphone-smartwatch app for 30 days of AF monitoring or no cardiac rhythm monitoring. Validated surveys were deployed before and after the 30-day study period to assess anxiety, patient activation, and self-rated physical and mental health. Logistic regression and generalized estimation equations were used to examine the association between smartwatch prescription for AF monitoring and changes in the patient-reported outcomes. Results: A total of 110 participants (mean age 64 years, 41% female, 91% non-Hispanic White) were studied. Seventy percent of intervention participants were novice smartwatch users, as opposed to 84% of controls, and there was no significant difference in baseline rates of anxiety, activation, or self-rated health between the 2 groups. The incidence of new AF among smartwatch users was 6%. Participants who were prescribed smartwatches did not have a statistically significant change in anxiety, activation, or self-reported health as compared to those who were not prescribed smartwatches. The results held even after removing participants who received an AF alert on the watch. Conclusion: The prescription of smartwatches to stroke survivors for AF monitoring does not adversely affect key patient-reported outcomes. Further research is needed to better inform the successful deployment of smartwatches in clinical practice.

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests Based on Symptom Onset and Close Contact Exposure: A secondary analysis from the Test Us At Home prospective cohort study.

Background: The performance of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 (Ag-RDT) in temporal relation to symptom onset or exposure is unknown, as is the impact of vaccination on this relationship. Objective: To evaluate the performance of Ag-RDT compared with RT-PCR based on day after symptom onset or exposure in order to decide on 'when to test'. Design Setting and Participants: The Test Us at Home study was a longitudinal cohort study that enrolled participants over 2 years old across the United States between October 18, 2021 and February 4, 2022. All participants were asked to conduct Ag-RDT and RT-PCR testing every 48 hours over a 15-day period. Participants with one or more symptoms during the study period were included in the Day Post Symptom Onset (DPSO) analyses, while those who reported a COVID-19 exposure were included in the Day Post Exposure (DPE) analysis. Exposure: Participants were asked to self-report any symptoms or known exposures to SARS-CoV-2 every 48-hours, immediately prior to conducting Ag-RDT and RT-PCR testing. The first day a participant reported one or more symptoms was termed DPSO 0, and the day of exposure was DPE 0. Vaccination status was self-reported. Main Outcome and Measures: Results of Ag-RDT were self-reported (positive, negative, or invalid) and RT-PCR results were analyzed by a central laboratory. Percent positivity of SARS-CoV-2 and sensitivity of Ag-RDT and RT-PCR by DPSO and DPE were stratified by vaccination status and calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Results: A total of 7,361 participants enrolled in the study. Among them, 2,086 (28.3%) and 546 (7.4%) participants were eligible for the DPSO and DPE analyses, respectively. Unvaccinated participants were nearly twice as likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than vaccinated participants in event of symptoms (PCR+: 27.6% vs 10.1%) or exposure (PCR+: 43.8% vs. 22.2%). The highest proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals tested positive on DPSO 2 and DPE 5-8. Performance of RT-PCR and Ag-RDT did not differ by vaccination status. Ag-RDT detected 78.0% (95% Confidence Interval: 72.56-82.61) of PCR-confirmed infections by DPSO 4. For exposed participants, Ag-RDT detected 84.9% (95% CI: 75.0-91.4) of PCR-confirmed infections by day five post-exposure (DPE 5). Conclusions and Relevance: Performance of Ag-RDT and RT-PCR was highest on DPSO 0-2 and DPE 5 and did not differ by vaccination status. These data suggests that serial testing remains integral to enhancing the performance of Ag-RDT.

Self-reported efficacy in patient-physician interaction in relation to anxiety, patient activation, and health-related quality of life among stroke survivors.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of AF is critical for stroke prevention. Several commercially available smartwatches are FDA cleared for AF detection. However, little is known about how patient-physician relationships affect patients' anxiety, activation, and health-related quality of life when prescribed smartwatch for AF detection. METHODS: Data were used from the Pulsewatch study (NCT03761394), which randomized adults (>50 years) with no contraindication to anticoagulation and a CHA2DS2-VASc risk score ≥2 to receive a smartwatch-smartphone app dyad for AF monitoring vs. conventional monitoring with an ECG patch (Cardea SoloTM) and monitored participants for up to 45 days. The Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions survey was used to assess patient confidence in physician interaction at baseline with scores ≥45 indicating high perceived efficacy in patient-provider interactions. Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Scale, Consumer Health Activation Index, and Short-Form Health Survey were utilized to examine anxiety, patient activation, and physical and mental health status, at baseline, 14, and 44 days, respectively. We used mixed-effects repeated measures linear regression models to assess changes in psychosocial outcomes among smartwatch users in relation to self-reported efficacy in physician interaction over the study period. RESULTS: A total of 93 participants (average age 64.1 ± 8.9 years; 43.0% female; 88.2% non-Hispanic white) were included in this analysis. At baseline, fifty-six (60%) participants reported high perceived efficacy in patient-physician interaction. In the fully adjusted models, high perceived efficacy (vs. low) at baseline was associated with greater patient activation and perceived mental health (ß 12.0, p-value <0.001; ß 3.39, p-value <0.05, respectively). High perceived self-efficacy was not associated with anxiety or physical health status (ß - 0.61, p-value 0.46; ß 0.64, p-value 0.77) among study participants. CONCLUSIONS: Higher self-efficacy in patient-physician interaction was associated with higher patient activation and mental health status among stroke survivors using smartwatches. Furthermore, we found no association between anxiety and smartwatch prescription for AF in participants with high self-efficacy in patient-physician interaction. Efforts to improve self-efficacy in patient-physician interaction may improve patient activation and self-rated health and subsequently may lead to better clinical outcomes.KEY MESSAGESHigher self-efficacy in patient-physician interaction was associated with higher patient activation and mental health status among stroke survivors using smartwatches.No association between anxiety and smartwatch prescription for AF in participants with high self-efficacy in patient-physician interaction.Efforts to improve self-efficacy in patient-physician interaction may improve patient activation and self-rated health and subsequently may lead to better clinical outcomes.

Usefulness of Self-Reported Physical Activity and Clinical Outcomes in Older Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Current guidelines encourage regular physical activity (PA) to gain cardiovascular health benefit. However, little is known about whether older adults with atrial fibrillation (AF) who engage in the guideline-recommended level of PA are less likely to experience clinically relevant outcomes. We did a retrospective study based on the data from Systemic Assessment of Geriatric Elements in AF (SAGE-AF) prospective cohort study. The study population consisted of older participants with AF (≥65 years) and a congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke vascular disease, age 65 to 75 and sex(CHA2DS2-VASc) score ≥2. PA was quantified by self-reported Minnesota Leisure Time PA questionnaire. Competing risk models were used to examine the association between PA level and clinical outcomes over 2 years while controlling for several potentially confounding variables. A total of 1,244 participants (average age 76 years; 51% men; 85% non-Hispanic White) were studied. A total of 50.5% of participants engaged in regular PA. Meeting the recommended level of PA was associated with lower mortality over 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 0.95) but was not associated with rates of stroke or major bleeding. In conclusion, older adults with AF who engaged in guideline-recommended PA are more likely to survive in the long term. Healthcare providers should promote and encourage engagement in PA and tailor interventions to address barriers of engagement.