ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
"It Was Very Comforting to Find Out Right Away." - Patient Perspectives on Point-of-Care Molecular SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Primary Care.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Multi-center investigation on the influence of clinical characteristics and molecular group A streptococci diagnostics on the management of tonsillopharyngitis in pediatric practices in Berlin-BASE study.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Trial
- Understanding capability, opportunity, and motivation for at-home COVID-19 testing in underserved populations during the pandemic.Translational behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Does the Addition of Point-of-Care Testing Alter Antibiotic Prescribing Decisions When Patients Present with Acute Sore Throat to Primary Care? A Prospective Test of Change.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Point-of-Care Testing for SARS-CoV-2: A Prospective Study in a Primary Health Centre.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Point-of-care laboratory testing in primary care: utilization, limitations and perspectives of general practitioners in Germany.BMC primary care · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of point-of-care tests (POCTs) has been a central strategy to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, evidence on the application and consequences of POCTs within medical settings is rare. Purpose: To assess and understand patient perspectives on molecular point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 testing conducted in primary care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study among patients who were tested with a molecular SARS-CoV-2 rapid test (ID NOW Results: A total of 215 patients from nine family practices and one pediatric practice participated. The immediate availability of the test result was important to the majority of patients (94.3%). 95.7% of patients trusted in their test result. Personal consequences of the immediate test result referred to pandemic measures, certainty of action and reassurance. For further tests, patients were willing to pay between 0€ and 100€ (interquartile range = 10-25€) for the molecular SARS-CoV-2 POCT, regardless of the test result. Expectations of being offered the test again in case of renewed cold symptoms were reported by 96.2%. Conclusion: Patients highly appreciated molecular SARS-CoV-2 rapid testing conducted in primary care practices. The immediate availability of the test result led to adjustments in patients' behavior and emotional wellbeing. However, potentially challenging for the implementation of POCTs in primary care practices may be the reimbursement of test costs and patients' expectations in future situation.
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.