ArticleBJGP open2025
'The doctors were more knowledgeable about what I had': patient views on the value of point-of-care tests for managing respiratory infections. A qualitative study in European primary care.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. 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.
- Patients' preferences and perceptions of point-of-care technologies: Survey results from the lung disease community.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Looking beyond effectiveness: Integration of social science research within international infectious disease research in primary care.The European journal of general practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care tests (POCT) can support diagnosis of patients with community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections (CA-RTI) in primary care and thereby reduce uncertainty whether antibiotics may benefit patients. However, successful roll out of POCTs need to be built on a deep understanding of patients' perspectives on the place of POCTs in patient-centred care.
aimTo explore patients' perceptions of the value of POCTs during consultations for CA-RTI. DESIGN &
settingA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in Belgium, Republic of Ireland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, and the UK with patients who consulted for CA-RTI in primary care.
methodInterviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsInterviews with 56 participants revealed that in the process of a GP making a diagnosis and treatment decision, patients valued several components, such as a physical examination, their GP enquiring about and listening to concerns, and a POCT. Yet, the visibility and relative importance of each of these components varied in the four main ways in which patients perceived the value of POCTs, including 1) test as objective evidence compared to 'subjective' clinical judgment; 2) test as providing more precision; 3) test as inferior to clinical judgment; 4) test as one of the tools in the GP's toolbox.
conclusionThe wide variation in patient perceptions about POCT for CA-RTI underscores the importance of recognising patient preferences regarding the diagnostic process. This understanding is important to ensure that POCT results optimally influence treatment decision-making, patient satisfaction, and acceptance of their care plan.
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.