Abstract
Objective The aim of this study is to understand stakeholder experiences of cardiovascular disease (CVD) diagnosis to support the development of technological solutions that meet current needs. Specifically, we aimed to identify challenges faced by stakeholders in the process of diagnosis of CVD; to identify discrepancies between patient and clinician experiences of CVD diagnosis, and to make recommendations for the requirements of future health technology solutions intended to improve CVD diagnosis.
Design The qualitative data was obtained using semi-structured focus groups and 1-1 interviews.
Participants UK-based individuals (N = 32) with lived experience of diagnosis of CVD (n = 23) and clinicians with experience in diagnosing CVD (n = 9).
Results Thematic analysis of focus groups and interview transcripts produced four key themes related to challenges contributing to delayed or inaccurate diagnosis of CVD: Symptom Interpretation, Patient Characteristics, Patient-Clinician Interactions, and Systemic Challenges. Sub-themes from each theme are discussed in depth.
Conclusions Challenges related to time and communication were greatest for both stakeholder groups, however there were differences in other areas, for example patient experiences highlighted difficulties with the psychological aspects of diagnosis and interpreting ambiguous symptoms, while clinicians emphasised the role of individual patient differences and the lack of rapport in contributing to delays or inaccurate diagnosis. Key takeaways from this qualitative study were summarised into a table of considerations to highlight key areas that require prioritisation for future research aiming to improve the efficiency and accuracy of CVD diagnosis using digital technologies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work is supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) (grant number: EP/X000257/1).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was reviewed and approved by the Sciences & Technology Cross-School Research Ethics Council at the University of Sussex (reference ER/FM409/1).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.