ArticleHealth science reports2018
Understanding user requirements to improve adoption of influenza diagnostics in clinical care within Metro Manila.
Article in Health science reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of MicroScan Bacterial Identification Panels for Low-Resource Settings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Implementing COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Rapid Diagnostic Tests in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Review
- Formative research to inform development of a new diagnostic for soil-transmitted helminths: Going beyond the laboratory to ensure access to a needed product.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Article
- Understanding user requirements to improve adoption of influenza diagnostics in clinical care within Metro Manila.Health science reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimInfluenza diagnostics play a critical role informing in clinical management decisions and defining the global epidemiology of the disease to support public health responses. Use of influenza diagnostics within most low-income and middle-income countries remains limited, including in the Philippines, where they are currently used only for epidemiologic surveillance. The aim of this study was to define key considerations, including product characteristics, which may influence future adoption, uptake, and integration of influenza diagnostics into public and private clinical settings in this emerging Asian market.
methodsOur study was conducted using a convenience sample of public and private hospital laboratories in Metro Manila. A usability assessment was conducted that included interviews with decision-makers and direct observation of laboratory end users using 2 platforms representative of emerging diagnostic products: (1) a point-of-care antigen-based rapid immunoassay diagnostic test paired with a reader and (2) a molecular diagnostic platform intended for decentralized use. Data were analyzed to assess user errors and device failure modes with each platform and to determine key considerations related to product adoption and uptake.
resultsThe most difficult test step for most users on both platforms involved sample preparation. When deciding to adopt a new test, priority product attributes include performance, potential volume of demand from clinicians, equipment cost, and ease of use. Demand for new tests is likely going to be driven by clinicians, and policies and guidelines will be needed to support the introduction of new products.
conclusionAdoption of influenza diagnostics in Metro Manila is feasible but will require affordable products capable of satisfying needs for use in both epidemiologic surveillance and clinical management.
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.