ArticleBJGP open2024
Qualitative evaluation of a molecular point-of-care testing study for influenza in UK primary care.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of qualitative and mixed methods research in diagnostic technology evaluation and implementation: insights from a systematic review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
- The Impact of Point-of-Care Testing for Influenza on Antimicrobial Stewardship in UK Primary Care: Nested Cohort Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfluenza contributes to the surge in winter infections and the consequent winter pressures on the health service. Molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) for influenza may improve patient management by providing rapid and accurate clinical diagnosis to inform the timely initiation of antiviral therapy and reduce unnecessary admissions and antibiotics use.
aimTo explore factors that influence the adoption or non-adoption of POCT in English general practices and provide insights to enable its integration into routine practice workflows. DESIGN &
settingA qualitative implementation evaluation was conducted in 10 general practices within the English national sentinel network (Oxford RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre), from April-July 2023.
methodUsing the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework, data collection and analysis were conducted across 10 practices. We made ethnographic observations of the POCT workflow and surveyed the practice staff for their perspectives on POCT implementation. Data were analysed using a mix of descriptive statistics, graphical modelling techniques, and framework analysis.
resultsEthnographic observations identified the following two modes of POCT integration into practice workflow: (1) clinician POCT workflow, which typically involved batch testing owing to time constraints; and (2) research nurse or healthcare assistant POCT workflow, which was characterised by immediate testing of individual patients. Survey data indicated that most primary care staff considered the POCT training offered was sufficient and these practices were ready for change. Some participants agreed that there was the capacity and resources to integrate POCT into workflows. It was uncertain as to whether POCT required changes to organisational routines and processes.
conclusionGeneral practices should demonstrate flexibility in the workflow and workforce they deploy to integrate POCT into routine clinical workflow.
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.