ArticleThe journal of applied laboratory medicine2022
2021 Patient Preferences for Point of Care Testing Survey: More Acceptance and Less Concern.
Article in The journal of applied laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patients' preferences and perceptions of point-of-care technologies: Survey results from the lung disease community.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Measuring FVIII Activity and Thrombin Generation Simultaneously With a Novel Point of Care Platform (EnzySystem HemA): Qualitative Usability Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Evolving perceptions of point-of-care-technologies: Results from a nationwide survey of healthcare professionals.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Point-of-care testing preferences 2020-2022: Trends over the years.Cardiovascular digital health journal · 2024Article
- Acceptability and Determinants for Implementation of the EnzySystem, a Novel Near-Patient Testing Platform for Haemophilia A.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of HemophiliaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe evolving opinions of our community members provide insights into how end-users perceive the value and identify key point-of-care test (POCT) characteristics.
methodsWe deployed our validated 45-item English-language survey to uncompensated volunteers and compared the results from 1264 respondents in 2021 with those obtained in 2020.
resultsAverage responses for items regarding the benefits of POCTs demonstrated that the 2021 respondents indicated agreement with all 14 potential benefits. Average responses for items regarding concerns were distinctly different from those for benefits. The only concern item that scored in the agree range was "not having insurance coverage for POCTs." Average responses to the other 13 concern items were in the disagree range. For 8 of these items, the magnitude of disagreement was greater in the 2021 survey than was observed for the 2020 survey. Differences in POCT exposure over time and by US regions suggest that higher levels of exposure to POCTs in the East are associated with stronger public support.
conclusionsCommunity members strongly support the development of accurate, convenient, easy-to-use, affordable, equitably available, in-home POCTs that produce immediate results. This empowers patients and home caregivers to diagnose, manage, enhance their adherence to medical treatments, and more efficiently engage their physicians.
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.