Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26652014›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Point-of-care testing in India: missed opportunities to realize the true potential of point-of-care testing programs.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

Nora EngelDepartment of Health, Ethics & Society, Research School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Postbus 616, Maastricht, MD, NL - 6200, The Netherlands. n.engel@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Gayatri GaneshInstitute of Public Health, #250, 2nd C Main, 2nd C Cross, Girinagar I Phase, Bangalore, 560 085, India. gayatriganesh@yahoo.com.
Mamata PatilInstitute of Public Health, #250, 2nd C Main, 2nd C Cross, Girinagar I Phase, Bangalore, 560 085, India. drmamatap@gmail.com.
Vijayashree YellappaInstitute of Public Health, #250, 2nd C Main, 2nd C Cross, Girinagar I Phase, Bangalore, 560 085, India. vijayashree@iphindia.org.
Caroline VadnaisDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, 1020 Pine Ave West, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A2, Canada. caroline.vadnais@mail.mcgill.ca.
Nitika Pant PaiDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, McGill University and McGill University Health Centre, V Building, Royal Victoria Hospital, 687 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, H3A1A1, Canada. nitika.pai@mcgill.ca.
Madhukar PaiDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, 1020 Pine Ave West, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A2, Canada. madhukar.pai@mcgill.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe core objective of any point-of-care (POC) testing program is to ensure that testing will result in an actionable management decision (e.g. referral, confirmatory test, treatment), within the same clinical encounter (e.g. POC continuum). This can but does not have to involve rapid tests. Most studies on POC testing focus on one specific test and disease in a particular healthcare setting. This paper describes the actors, technologies and practices involved in diagnosing major diseases in five Indian settings - the home, community, clinics, peripheral laboratories and hospitals. The aim was to understand how tests are used and fit into the health system and with what implications for the POC continuum.

methodsThe paper reports on a qualitative study including 78 semi-structured interviews and 13 focus group discussions with doctors, nurses, patients, lab technicians, program officers and informal providers, conducted between January and June 2013 in rural and urban Karnataka, South India. Actors, diseases, tests and diagnostic processes were mapped for each of the five settings and analyzed with regard to whether and how POC continuums are being ensured.

resultsSuccessful POC testing hardly occurs in any of the five settings. In hospitals and public clinics, most of the rapid tests are used in laboratories where either the single patient encounter advantage is not realized or the rapidity is compromised. Lab-based testing in a context of manpower and equipment shortages leads to delays. In smaller peripheral laboratories and private clinics with shorter turn-around-times, rapid tests are unavailable or too costly. Here providers find alternative measures to ensure the POC continuum. In the home setting, patients who can afford a test are not/do not feel empowered to use those devices.

conclusionThese results show that there is much diagnostic delay that deters the POC continuum. Existing rapid tests are currently not translated into treatment decisions rapidly or are not available where they could ensure shorter turn-around times, thus undermining their full potential. To ensure the success of POC testing programs, test developers, decision-makers and funders need to account for such ground realities and overcome barriers to POC testing programs.

Indexed as

AdultDelayed DiagnosisDelivery of Health CareFemaleFocus GroupsHumansIndiaMalePoint-of-Care TestingQualitative ResearchReferral and ConsultationRural Population

Identifiers

PMID26652014
PMCPMC4677441

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.