Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38037044›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Implementing PCR testing in general practice-a qualitative study using normalization process theory.

Sinead Shahrzad, Kirubakaran Balasubramaniam, Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard, Trine Thilsing, Jens Søndergaard, Gritt Overbeck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Sinead ShahrzadDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Research Unit of General Practice, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3959-0625
Kirubakaran BalasubramaniamDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Research Unit of General Practice, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3612-1731
Marius Brostrøm KousgaardDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Center for General Practice, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8501-9453
Trine ThilsingDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Research Unit of General Practice, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2041-2219
Jens SøndergaardDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Research Unit of General Practice, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1629-1864
Gritt OverbeckDepartment of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Research Unit of General Practice, Odense, Denmark. goverbeck@health.sdu.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1740-1148

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic brought attention to a need for rapid testing of large populations. Experiences from community-based testing settings show that there can be workload difficulties, logistical challenges and socioeconomic downsides to large scale Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing. Alternative testing arenas have therefore been considered. Rapid point-of-care (POC) PCR test methods have since been developed and could have potential to surveille viral respiratory infections. It is, however, unknown if PCR testing can be successfully implemented routinely in general practice. The aim of this study was to assess factors that enable and inhibit the implementation of point-of-care PCR testing for acute respiratory tract infection in general practice.

methodsFourteen general practices in the east Zealand area in Denmark were included in the study and given access to POC PCR testing equipment during a flu season. The participating clinics were initially trained in the use of a POC PCR testing device and then spent 6 weeks testing it. We conducted qualitative interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and their staff, before and after the testing period, specifically focusing on their clinical decision-making and internal collaboration in relation to POC PCR testing. We used normalization process theory to design the interview guides and to analyze the data.

resultsProfessionals reported no clinical need for a POC PCR testing device in a non-pandemic clinical setting. Results were delivered faster, but this was only timesaving for the patient and not the GP, who had to perform more tasks.

conclusionIn its current form, the added diagnostic value of using POC PCR testing in general practice was not sufficient for the professionals to justify the increased work connected to the usage of the diagnostic procedure in daily practice.

trial registrationn/a.

Indexed as

General PracticePandemicsFamily PracticeHumansPoint-of-Care TestingPolymerase Chain ReactionEvaluationImplementationNormalization process theoryPOC PCR testing

Identifiers

PMID38037044
PMCPMC10687998

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.