Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33849848›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews to identify the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of point-of-care diagnostic tests in the UK.

Jeremy R Huddy, Melody Zhifang Ni, James Barlow, George B Hanna

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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.

Jeremy R HuddyDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1966-3149
Melody Zhifang NiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7356-848X
James BarlowImperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK.
George B HannaDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK g.hanna@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study investigated the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of point-of-care tests (POCTs).

designQualitative study incorporating a constant comparative analysis of stakeholder responses to a series of interviews undertaken to design the Point-of-Care Key Evidence Tool.

settingThe study was conducted in relation to POCTs used in all aspects of healthcare.

participantsForty-three stakeholders were interviewed including clinicians (incorporating laboratory staff and members of trust POCT committees), commissioners, industry, regulators and patients.

resultsThematic analysis highlighted 32 barriers in six themes and 28 facilitators in eight themes to the adoption of POCTs. Six themes were common to both barriers and facilitators (clinical, cultural, evidence, design and quality assurance, financial and organisational) and two themes contained facilitators alone (patient factors and other (non-financial) resource use).

conclusionsFindings from this study demonstrate the complex motivations of stakeholders in the adoption of POCT. Most themes were common to both barriers and facilitators suggesting that good device design, stakeholder engagement and appropriate evidence provision can increase the likelihood of a POCT device adoption. However, it is important to realise that while the majority of identified barriers may be perceived or mitigated some may be absolute and if identified early in device development further investment should be carefully considered.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsPoint-of-Care TestingDelivery of Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomclinical chemistryhealth economicshealth policy

Identifiers

PMID33849848
PMCPMC8051412

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.