ArticleBMJ open2025
Patients' experience of self-testing measuring total white cell count and C reactive protein during treatment at home with antibiotics: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore patients' experiences and preferences of self-testing using white cell count point-of-care test (POCT) and C reactive protein POCT during antibiotic treatment at home.
settingA University Hospital in the Region of Zealand (DK).
participants10 inpatients treated with antibiotics who were discharged from hospital to continue antibiotic treatment at home. They were trained in the hospital supervised by research personnel before self-testing at home.
designAn explorative qualitative study using thematic analysis.
resultsThe participants considered the self-testing beneficial, mainly due to not having to travel to get a blood test drawn, the rapid test time and the ability to closely monitor their treatment. The participants perceived that self-testing at home would make them feel more in control of their disease and would give them the ability to live a more normal life. Moreover, self-testing at home showed to be feasible for some patients but with barriers to overcome, such as the ability to use technology and cognitive challenges.
conclusionsOur study showed that self-testing at home was feasible for some patients, provided they received thorough training at the hospital ensuring that participants were able to conduct the self-testing and use the smartphone technology before transitioning to their home. This could help reduce barriers to home self-testing by highlighting its benefits and emphasising the need for adequate patient guidance and support.
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.