Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40164494›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2025

GPs' acceptability and feasibility for using point-of-care tests for cancer in primary care: a qualitative interview study.

Anam A Ayaz-Shah, Richard D Neal, Kelly E Lloyd, Matthew J Thompson, Samuel G Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Anam A Ayaz-ShahLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK anam.ayaz.shah@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6258-947X
Richard D NealExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3544-2744
Kelly E LloydLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0420-2342
Matthew J ThompsonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Samuel G SmithLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1983-4470

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care is the first point of contact for patients with symptoms suspicious of cancer. The availability of reliable, rapid diagnostic cancer tests, at the 'point of care', have the potential to expedite diagnosis, and support timely management of patients.

aimTo explore the acceptability and feasibility of using point-of-care tests (POCTs) for detecting cancer among UK GPs, including barriers and facilitators to uptake. DESIGN &

settingA qualitative semi-structured interview study with 32 UK GPs.

methodOnline and telephone interviews guided by the theoretical framework of acceptability were conducted. The data were analysed inductively using framework analysis.

resultsGPs found POCTs acceptable if they were accurate, well-designed, and supported by robust evidence. Funding for tests and implementation resources were crucial, with an expectation of remuneration for their time. GPs believed POCTs could improve patient triage, reduce secondary care referrals, and facilitate clearer communication of referral decisions with patients. Concerns included potential workload increase, and overtesting in patients. Facilitators for uptake included recommendations in guidelines, peer acceptance, and comprehensive training. However, low awareness of POCTs among GPs and slow innovation adoption within the NHS were considerable barriers.

conclusionMost GPs welcome the use of POCTs for cancer detection in primary care; however, this will require substantial system-level changes. We highlight the relevant considerations and challenges that need to be addressed before uptake. This study also calls attention to wider innovation implementation issues that should be considered by GPs, test developers, policymakers, and stakeholders.

Indexed as

cancerdiagnosisnear-patient testingpoint-of-care testingprimary health carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID40164494
PMCPMC12728862

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.