Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18297558›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2008

General practitioners' perceptions of introducing near-patient testing for common infections into routine primary care: a qualitative study.

Christopher C Butler, Sharon Simpson, Fiona Wood

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care: an updated and expanded meta-ethnography.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Clinical presentation, microbiological aetiology and disease course in patients with flu-like illness: a post hoc analysis of randomised controlled trial data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Point-of-Care Testing for Pharyngitis in the Pharmacy.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher C ButlerSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Wales, UK. ButlerCC@cardiff.ac.uk
Sharon Simpson
Fiona Wood
Cardiff University · GBUniversity of Wales · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNear-patient tests are promoted for guiding management of common infections in primary care with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of prescribing decisions and containing antimicrobial resistance. Changes in clinical practice should be based on appraisals of the factors that might influence change, viewed from the perspective of those expected to implement the change. We therefore explored the views of general practitioners concerning the possible introduction of near-patient tests for managing common infections.

designQualitative semi-structured interview study. Interviews were recorded and analysed using thematic content analysis.

settingGeneral practices in south-east Wales, UK. SUBJECTS: A total of 26 general practitioners (GPs) from high fluroquinolone antibiotics prescribing practices and 14 GPs from practices that prescribed fluroquinolones close to the south-east Wales mean.

resultsThere was strong enthusiasm for a hypothetical near-patient, finger-prick blood tests that could distinguish viral from bacterial infections. Many GPs emphasized that such tests would be valuable in "selling" decisions not to prescribe antibiotics to patients. Concerns included limited additional useful information to guide prescribing above clinical diagnosis alone, that patients might deteriorate even if the tests correctly identified a viral aetiology, and that GPs would need to be convinced by research evidence supporting uptake. Several indicated that tests would be useful only for a limited number of patients and they were concerned by time pressures, apparatus maintenance and quality control, cost, and possible objections from patients, especially children.

conclusionsDespite GP enthusiasm for the concept of a rapid test to distinguish viral from bacterial infection, strategies to promote uptake would be enhanced if concerns were addressed regarding the importance and feasibility of such tests in daily practice.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAttitude of Health PersonnelBacterial InfectionsDiagnosis, DifferentialEvidence-Based MedicineFamily PracticeFluoroquinolonesHumansPhysicians, FamilyPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesVirus DiseasesAnti-Bacterial AgentsFluoroquinolones

Identifiers

PMID18297558
PMCPMC3406622
OpenAlexW2071211873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.