Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30366918›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Funding and policy incentives to encourage implementation of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing for lower respiratory tract infection in NHS primary care: a mixed-methods evaluation.

Matthew Johnson, Liz Cross, Nick Sandison, Jamie Stevenson, Thomas Monks, Michael Moore

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Rapid microbiological respiratory point-of-care testing: a qualitative study with primary care clinicians.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Matthew JohnsonNIHR CLAHRC Wessex Data Science Hub, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5597-6615
Liz CrossAttenborough Surgery, Bushey Medical Centre, Herts Valleys Clinical Commissioning Group, NIHR CLARHC East of England, Bushey, UK.
Nick SandisonNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Jamie StevensonNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Thomas MonksNIHR CLAHRC Wessex Data Science Hub, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Michael MoorePrimary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1016Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesUtilisation of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing for lower respiratory tract infection has been limited in UK primary care, with costs and funding suggested as important barriers. We aimed to use existing National Health Service funding and policy mechanisms to alleviate these barriers and engage with clinicians and healthcare commissioners to encourage implementation.

designA mixed-methods study design was adopted, including a qualitative survey to identify clinicians' and commissioners' perceived benefits, barriers and enablers post-implementation, and quantitative analysis of results from a real-world implementation study.

interventionsWe developed a funding specification to underpin local reimbursement of general practices for test delivery based on an item of service payment. We also created training and administrative materials to facilitate implementation by reducing organisational burden. The implementation study provided intervention sites with a testing device and supplies, training and practical assistance.

resultsDespite engagement with several groups, implementation and uptake of our funding specification were limited. Survey respondents confirmed costs and funding as important barriers in addition to physical and operational constraints and cited training and the value of a local champion as enablers.

conclusionsAlthough survey respondents highlighted the clinical benefits, funding remains a barrier to implementation in UK primary care and appears not to be alleviated by the existing financial incentives available to commissioners. The potential to meet incentive targets using lower cost methods, a lack of policy consistency or competing financial pressures and commissioning programmes may be important determinants of local priorities. An implementation champion could help to catalyse support and overcome operational barriers at the local level, but widespread implementation is likely to require national policy change. Successful implementation may reproduce antibiotic prescribing reductions observed in research studies.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisC-Reactive ProteinHealth PersonnelHumansMotivationNational Health ProgramsPoint-of-Care TestingPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchRespiratory Tract InfectionsUnited KingdomC-Reactive Proteinhealth policyprimary carerespiratory infections

Identifiers

PMID30366918
PMCPMC6224752

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.