ArticleBMJ open2019
'Just another vial…': a qualitative study to explore the acceptability and feasibility of routine blood-borne virus testing in an emergency department setting in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Staff perspectives on implementing opt-out blood-borne virus testing in English emergency departments: a qualitative study.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2026Article
- Acceptability of automatic screening for viral hepatitis in an emergency department setting: patient and healthcare worker perspectives.Internal medicine journal · 2025Article
- Should Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing Be Replaced With Combined Blood-Borne Virus Testing?Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Early cost-utility analysis of hepatitis C virus testing for emergency department attendees in France.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Universal testing for hepatitis B and hepatitis C in the emergency department: a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of two urban hospitals in the United Kingdom.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2022Article
- "I Didn't Know What They're Gonna Do to Me: So That's Why I Said No": Why Youth Decline HIV Testing in Emergency Departments.Behavioral medicine (Washington, D.C.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIncreased test uptake for HIV and viral hepatitis is fast becoming a health priority at both national and global levels. Late diagnosis of these infections remains a critical public health concern in the UK. Recommendations have been issued to expand blood-borne virus (BBV) testing in alternative settings. Emergency departments (EDs) offer a potentially important point of testing. This paper presents findings from a qualitative study which aimed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of a routine opt-out combined BBV testing intervention implemented at an inner London ED.
methodsWe conducted 22 semistructured interviews with patients and service providers in the ED over a 4-month period during the intervention pilot. A grounded analytical approach was employed to conduct thematic analysis of qualitative study data.
resultsCore interrelating thematic areas, identified and analytically developed in relation to test intervention implementation and experience, included the following: the remaking of routine test procedure; notions of responsibility in relation to status knowledge and test engagement; the opportunity and constraints of the ED as a site for testing; and the renegotiation of testing cultures within and beyond the clinic space.
conclusionStudy findings demonstrate how relational and spatial dynamics specific to the ED setting shape test meaning and engagement. We found acceptability of the test practice was articulated through narratives of situated responsibility, with the value of the test offset by perceptions of health need and justification of the test expense. Participant accounts indicate that the nontargeted approach of the test affords a productive disruption to 'at-risk' identities, yet they also reveal limits to the test intervention's 'normalising' effect. Evaluation of the intervention must attend to the situated dynamics of the test practice if opportunities of an opt-out BBV test procedure are to be fully realised. Findings also highlight the critical need to further evaluate post-test intervention practices and experiences.
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.