Trial reportAfrican journal of primary health care & family medicine2017
The effect of phlebotomy training on blood sample rejection and phlebotomy knowledge of primary health care providers in Cape Town: A quasi-experimental study.
Trial report in African journal of primary health care & family medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Partitioning All-Cause Pre-Analytical Laboratory Rejections: A 25-Month Retrospective Audit of Specimen Quality Failures with Six Sigma, IFCC, and Pareto Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Best practices in sample management & pre-analytical quality control: overcoming challenges in resource-limited laboratory settings.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Review
- High paediatric HIV viral load rejection rate in South Africa, a retrospective review.Southern African journal of HIV medicine · 2025Article
- Blood specimen rejection rate in clinical laboratory: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Practical laboratory medicine · 2023Review
- The impact of laboratory staff training workshops on coagulation specimen rejection rates.PloS one · 2022Article
- The results of a close follow-up of trainees to gain a good blood collection practice.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2020Article
- Quality improvement project: Reducing non-conformities of the samples for haemostasis testing in a secondary healthcare centre through the nurses' education in phlebotomy.Biochemia medica · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing amount of blood sample rejection at primary health care facilities (PHCFs), impacting negatively the staff, facility, patient and laboratory costs.
aimThe primary objective was to determine the rejection rate and reasons for blood sample rejection at four PHCFs before and after a phlebotomy training programme. The secondary objective was to determine whether phlebotomy training improved knowledge among primary health care providers (HCPs) and to develop a tool for blood sample acceptability. STUDY
settingTwo community health centres (CHCs) and two community day centres (CDCs) in Cape Town.
methodsA quasi-experimental study design (before and after a phlebotomy training programme).
resultsThe sample rejection rate was 0.79% (n = 60) at CHC A, 1.13% (n = 45) at CHC B, 1.64% (n = 38) at CDC C and 1.36% (n = 8) at CDC D pre-training. The rejection rate remained approximately the same post-training (p > 0.05). The same phlebotomy questionnaire was administered pre- and post-training to HCPs. The average score increased from 63% (95% CI 6.97‒17.03) to 96% (95% CI 16.91‒20.09) at CHC A (p = 0.039), 58% (95% CI 9.09‒14.91) to 93% (95% CI 17.64‒18.76) at CHC B (p = 0.006), 60% (95% CI 8.84‒13.13) to 97% (95% CI 16.14‒19.29) at CDC C (p = 0.001) and 63% (95% CI 9.81‒13.33) to 97% (95% CI 18.08‒19.07) at CDC D (p = 0.001).
conclusionThere is no statistically significant improvement in the rejection rate of blood samples (p > 0.05) post-training despite knowledge improving in all HCPs (p < 0.05).
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.