Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38688532›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2024

Use of the FebriDx point-of-care test for lower respiratory tract infections in primary care: a qualitative interview study.

Jill Rutter, Christopher R Wilcox, Nour Odeh, Ingrid Muller, Tristan W Clark, Paul Little, Firoza Davies, John McGavin, Nick Francis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Rapid microbiological respiratory point-of-care testing: a qualitative study with primary care clinicians.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Jill RutterPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Christopher R WilcoxPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK Christopher.Wilcox@soton.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4361-0354
Nour OdehPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Ingrid MullerPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Tristan W ClarkSchool of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Paul LittlePrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Firoza DaviesPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
John McGavinPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Nick FrancisPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8939-7312

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFebriDx is a single-use, analyser-free, point-of-care test with markers for bacterial (C-reactive protein [CRP]) and viral (myxovirus resistance protein A [MxA]) infection, measured on a finger-prick blood sample.

aimAs part of a larger feasibility study, we explored the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on the use of FebriDx to safely reduce antibiotic prescriptions for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in primary care. DESIGN &

settingRemote semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in South England.

methodIn total, 22 individuals (12 patients who underwent FebriDx testing and 10 HCPs from general practices that conducted testing) participated in interviews, which were analysed thematically.

resultsPatients and HCPs expressed positive views about use of the test. They felt FebriDx was a useful tool to inform prescribing decisions and provided a visual aid to support shared decision making and appropriate antibiotic use. Most felt it would be feasible to integrate use into routine primary care consultations. Some practical difficulties with blood collection and interpreting results, which impacted on usability, were identified. Some patients' reactions to negative test results suggested the need for better communication alongside use of the test.

conclusionFebriDx was perceived as a useful tool to guide antibiotic prescribing and support shared decision making. Initial practical problems with testing and communicating results are potential barriers to use. Training and practice on using the test and effective communication are likely to be important elements in ensuring patient understanding and satisfaction, and successful adoption.

Indexed as

diagnosisinfectious illnesspoint-of-care testingqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID38688532
PMCPMC11523514

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.