ArticleBMC health services research2023
Implementing PCR testing in general practice-a qualitative study using normalization process theory.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- "High specificity of PCR in diagnosing mucocutaneous leshminiasis: a systematic review and meta analysis".BMC infectious diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Use of qualitative and mixed methods research in diagnostic technology evaluation and implementation: insights from a systematic review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Effect of a Molecular Point-of-Care Test on Acute Respiratory Infections in General Practice: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- The Potential Impact of Primary Care-Based Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Point of Care Testing for Viral Acute Respiratory Infections in the UK: Modified Delphi Study.Health services insights · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.