Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31772084›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Introducing new point-of-care tests for common infections in publicly funded clinics in South Africa: a qualitative study with primary care clinicians.

Oliver van Hecke, Chris Butler, Marc Mendelson, Sarah Tonkin-Crine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Establishing a pharmacist-prescriber partnership in publicly funded primary healthcare clinics to optimise antibiotic prescribing in the Western Cape: An exploratory study.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2020
    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

4 authors.

Oliver van HeckeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK oliver.vanhecke@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Chris ButlerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Marc MendelsonDivision of Infectious Diseases and HIV Medicine, Department of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, UK.
Sarah Tonkin-CrineNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Broad-spectrum antibiotics are routinely prescribed empirically in the resource-poor settings for suspected acute common infections, which drive antimicrobial resistance. Point-of-care testing (POCT) might increase the appropriateness of decisions about whether and which antibiotic to prescribe, but implementation will be most effective if clinician's perspectives are taken into account.

objectivesTo explore the perceptions of South African primary care clinicians working in publicly funded clinics about: making antibiotic prescribing decisions for two common infection syndromes (acute cough, urinary tract infection); their experiences of existing POCTs; their perceptions of the barriers and opportunities for introducing (hypothetical) new POCTs. DESIGN, METHOD, PARTICIPANTS,

settingQualitative semistructured interviews with 23 primary care clinicians (nurses and doctors) at publicly funded clinics in the Western Cape Metro district, South Africa. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsClinicians reported that their antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by their clinical assessment, patient comorbidities, social factors (eg, access to care) and perceived patient expectations. Their experiences with currently available POCTs were largely positive, and they were optimistic about the potential for new POCTs to: support evidence-based prescribing decisions that might reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions; reduce the need for further investigations; support effective communication with patients, especially when antibiotics were unlikely to be of benefit. Resources and workflow disruption were seen as the main barriers to uptake into routine care.

conclusionsClinicians working in publicly funded clinics in the Western Cape Metro of South Africa saw POCTs as potentially useful for positively addressing both clinical and social drivers of the overprescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics, but were concerned about the resource implications and disruption of existing patient workflows.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAmbulatory Care FacilitiesAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug PrescriptionsHumansPoint-of-Care SystemsPoint-of-Care TestingPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareQualitative ResearchRespiratory Tract InfectionsSouth AfricaAnti-Bacterial Agentscommon infectionspoint-of-care tests, primary careresource-poor settings

Identifiers

PMID31772084
PMCPMC6887073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.