Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2010
Patient satisfaction with point-of-care testing in general practice.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2021Pooled it
- Primary care clinicians' attitudes towards point-of-care blood testing: a systematic review of qualitative studies.BMC family practice · 2013Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- The effectiveness of computer reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in general practice--a randomized controlled trial.Implementation science : IS · 2013Trial
- The cost-effectiveness of point of care testing in a general practice setting: results from a randomised controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2010Trial
- Article
- Evaluation of the Performance of New Fluorescence Immunoassay POCTs for Determining the Value of Vitamin D in Whole Blood.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Patient satisfaction and its determinants in diabetes care: insights from NPPCD data in Iran.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2025Article
- Clinical validation of the Hilab lens for AI supported point of care CBC testing in pediatric oncology.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Point-of-care C-reactive protein testing in general practice out-of-hours services: tool or trap?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- A CRISPR mediated point-of-care assay for the detection of mucosal calprotectin in an animal model of ulcerative colitis.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2025Article
- Regulation and governance for the implementation and management of point-of-care testing in Australia: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
- A passive blood separation sensing platform for point-of-care devices.Npj biosensing · 2025Article
- An Assessment of the Feasibility, Patient Acceptance, and Performance of Point-of-Care Transient Elastography for Metabolic-Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of CardiochekLipids in health and disease · 2024Article
- Barriers, enablers, benefits, and drawbacks to point-of-care testing: a survey of the general practice out-of-hours service in Scotland.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Trends in Molecular Diagnosis of Nosocomial Pneumonia Classic PCR vs. Point-of-Care PCR: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Facilitators and barriers of the implementation of point-of-care devices for cardiometabolic diseases: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care testing is increasingly being used in general practice to assist GPs in their management of patients with chronic disease. However, patient satisfaction and acceptability of point-of-care testing in general practice has not been widely studied.
aimTo determine if patients are more satisfied with point-of-care testing than with pathology laboratory testing for three chronic conditions. DESIGN OF STUDY: As part of a large multicentre, randomised, controlled trial assessing the use of point-of-care testing in Australian general practice, satisfaction was measured for patients having pathology testing performed by point-of-care testing devices or pathology laboratories. Patients in the trial were managed by GPs for diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, and/or anticoagulant therapy.
methodPatient satisfaction was measured using level of agreement with a variety of statements at the end of the study with a patient satisfaction questionnaire for both the intervention and control groups. Analysis was performed using a mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) with allowance for clustering at the practice level following Box-Cox transformations of the data to achieve normality.
resultsOverall, intervention patients reported that they were satisfied with point-of-care testing. In comparison with the control group, the intervention group had a higher level of agreement than control patients with statements relating to their satisfaction with the collection process (P<0.001) and confidence in the process (P<0.001). They also viewed point-of-care testing as strengthening their relationship with their GP (P = 0.010) and motivational in terms of better managing their condition (P<0.001).
conclusionThe results from this trial support patient satisfaction and acceptability of point-of-care testing in a general practice setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.