Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26771309›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Awareness, Interest, and Preferences of Primary Care Providers in Using Point-of-Care Cancer Screening Technology.

Chloe S Kim, Sarah Vanture, Margaret Cho, Catherine M Klapperich, Catharine Wang, Franklin W Huang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chloe S KimDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Sarah VantureDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Margaret ChoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Catherine M KlapperichDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Catharine WangDepartment of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Franklin W HuangHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Boston University · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · US

Funding

Center for Innovation in Point of Care Technologies for the Future of Cancer CareU54EB015403 · NIBIB · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI KLAPPERICH, CATHERINE M. · 2012 to 2016
$8.9M
Environmental Epidemiology in Community SettingsT32ES014562 · NIEHS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI Birgit Gunhild Claus Henn · 2006 to 2026
$7.7M
NIBIB NIH HHS 5-U54-EB015403NIBIB NIH HHS U54 EB015403NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES014562
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Well-developed point-of-care (POC) cancer screening tools have the potential to provide better cancer care to patients in both developed and developing countries. However, new medical technology will not be adopted by medical providers unless it addresses a population's existing needs and end-users' preferences. The goals of our study were to assess primary care providers' level of awareness, interest, and preferences in using POC cancer screening technology in their practice and to provide guidelines to biomedical engineers for future POC technology development. A total of 350 primary care providers completed a one-time self-administered online survey, which took approximately 10 minutes to complete. A $50 Amazon gift card was given as an honorarium for the first 100 respondents to encourage participation. The description of POC cancer screening technology was provided in the beginning of the survey to ensure all participants had a basic understanding of what constitutes POC technology. More than half of the participants (57%) stated that they heard of the term "POC technology" for the first time when they took the survey. However, almost all of the participants (97%) stated they were either "very interested" (68%) or "somewhat interested" (29%) in using POC cancer screening technology in their practice. Demographic characteristics such as the length of being in the practice of medicine, the percentage of patients on Medicaid, and the average number of patients per day were not shown to be associated with the level of interest in using POC. These data show that there is a great interest in POC cancer screening technology utilization among this population of primary care providers and vast room for future investigations to further understand the interest and preferences in using POC cancer technology in practice. Ensuring that the benefits of new technology outweigh the costs will maximize the likelihood it will be used by medical providers and patients.

Indexed as

AwarenessHealth PersonnelPoint-of-Care SystemsPrimary Health CareClinical CompetenceEarly Detection of CancerEpidemiologic FactorsFemaleHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansMaleNeoplasmsSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnology

Identifiers

PMID26771309
PMCPMC4714834
OpenAlexW2235203373

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.