Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26275231›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Barriers to Point-of-Care Testing in India: Results from Qualitative Research across Different Settings, Users and Major Diseases.

Nora Engel, Gayatri Ganesh, Mamata Patil, Vijayashree Yellappa, Nitika Pant Pai, Caroline Vadnais, Madhukar Pai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Nora EngelDepartment of Health, Ethics & Society, Research School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Gayatri GaneshInstitute of Public Health, Bangalore, India.
Mamata PatilInstitute of Public Health, Bangalore, India.
Vijayashree YellappaInstitute of Public Health, Bangalore, India.
Nitika Pant PaiDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, McGill University and McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Caroline VadnaisMcGill International TB Centre, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Madhukar PaiMcGill International TB Centre, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Institute of Public Health · INMcGill University · CAMaastricht University · NLMcGill University Health Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuccessful point-of-care testing, namely ensuring the completion of the test and treat cycle in the same encounter, has immense potential to reduce diagnostic and treatment delays, and impact patient outcomes. However, having rapid tests is not enough, as many barriers may prevent their successful implementation in point-of-care testing programs. Qualitative research on diagnostic practices may help identify such barriers across different points of care in health systems.

methodsIn this exploratory qualitative study, we conducted 78 semi-structured interviews and 13 focus group discussions in an urban and rural area of Karnataka, India, with healthcare providers (doctors, nurses, specialists, traditional healers, and informal providers), patients, community health workers, test manufacturers, laboratory technicians, program managers and policy-makers. Participants were purposively sampled to represent settings of hospitals, peripheral labs, clinics, communities and homes, in both the public and private sectors.

resultsIn the Indian context, the onus is on the patient to ensure successful point-of-care testing across homes, clinics, labs and hospitals, amidst uncoordinated providers with divergent and often competing practices, in settings lacking material, money and human resources. We identified three overarching themes affecting point-of-care testing: the main theme is 'relationships' among providers and between providers and patients, influenced by the cross-cutting theme of 'infrastructure'. Challenges with both result in 'modified practices' often favouring empirical (symptomatic) treatment over treatment guided by testing.

conclusionsEven if tests can be conducted on the spot and infrastructure challenges have been resolved, relationships among providers and between patients and providers are crucial for successful point-of-care testing. Furthermore, these barriers do not act in isolation, but are interlinked and need to be examined as such. Also, a test alone has only limited power to overcome those difficulties. Test developers, policy-makers, healthcare providers and funders need to use these insights in overcoming barriers to point-of-care testing programs.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePoint-of-Care TestingRural PopulationFemaleHumansIndiaMale

Identifiers

PMID26275231
PMCPMC4537276
OpenAlexW1800852982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.