Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26713441›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

"I Do Feel Like a Scientist at Times": A Qualitative Study of the Acceptability of Molecular Point-Of-Care Testing for Chlamydia and Gonorrhoea to Primary Care Professionals in a Remote High STI Burden Setting.

Lisa Natoli, Rebecca J Guy, Mark Shephard, Louise Causer, Steven G Badman, Belinda Hengel, Annie Tangey, James Ward, Tony Coburn, David Anderson and 3 more

Abstract 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 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Addressing Challenges inMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Point-by-Point Progress: Gonorrhea Point of Care Tests.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. WHO laboratory validation of XpertAPMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2018
    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

13 authors.

Lisa NatoliThe Kirby Institute, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rebecca J GuyThe Kirby Institute, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Mark ShephardFlinders University International Centre for Point of-Care Testing, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Louise CauserThe Kirby Institute, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Steven G BadmanThe Kirby Institute, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Belinda HengelApunipima Cape York Health Council, Cairns, QLD, Australia.
Annie TangeyNgaanyatjarra Health Service, Alice Springs, NT, Australia.
James WardSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Tony CoburnQueensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Council, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
David AndersonThe Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
John KaldorThe Kirby Institute, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Lisa MaherThe Kirby Institute, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
TTANGO Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoint-of-care tests for chlamydia (CT) and gonorrhoea (NG) could increase the uptake and timeliness of testing and treatment, contribute to improved disease control and reduce reproductive morbidity. The GeneXpert (Xpert CT/NG assay), suited to use at the point-of-care, is being used in the TTANGO randomised controlled trial (RCT) in 12 remote Australian health services with a high burden of sexually transmissible infections (STIs). This represents the first ever routine use of a molecular point-of-care diagnostic for STIs in primary care. The purpose of this study was to explore the acceptability of the GeneXpert to primary care staff in remote Australia.

methodsIn-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 staff (registered or enrolled nurses and Aboriginal Health Workers/Practitioners) trained and experienced with GeneXpert testing. Interviews were digitally-recorded and transcribed verbatim prior to content analysis.

resultsMost participants displayed positive attitudes, indicating the test was both easy to use and useful in their clinical context. Participants indicated that point-of-care testing had improved management of STIs, resulting in more timely and targeted treatment, earlier commencement of partner notification, and reduced follow up efforts associated with client recall. Staff expressed confidence in point-of-care test results and treating patients on this basis, and reported greater job satisfaction. While point-of-care testing did not negatively impact on client flow, several found the manual documentation processes time consuming, suggesting that improved electronic connectivity and test result transfer between the GeneXpert and patient management systems could overcome this. Managing positive test results in a shorter time frame was challenging for some but most found it satisfying to complete episodes of care more quickly.

conclusionsIn the context of a RCT, health professionals working in remote primary care in Australia found the GeneXpert highly acceptable. These findings have implications for use in other primary care settings around the world.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCost of IllnessAdultAustraliaChlamydia InfectionsFemaleGonorrheaHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansJob SatisfactionLost to Follow-UpMaleMiddle AgedPoint-of-Care TestingPower, PsychologicalPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID26713441
PMCPMC4703135

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.