ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Evolving perceptions of point-of-care-technologies: Results from a nationwide survey of healthcare professionals.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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.
- Article
- Patients' preferences and perceptions of point-of-care technologies: Survey results from the lung disease community.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
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
Background/Objective: Point-of-care technologies (POCTs) have grown increasingly prevalent in clinical and at-home settings, offering various rapid diagnostic capabilities. This study presents findings from a nationwide survey conducted between November 2023 and January 2024, capturing clinician perceptions of POCTs. Methods: The survey was distributed via email to healthcare professionals through academic and industry listservs and through LinkedIn posts. A total of 159 responses were analyzed. Results: Core priorities, including accuracy, ease of use, and availability, remain consistently valued over the years. However, several perceived benefits, including continuous patient monitoring, diagnostic certainty, and patient management exhibited significant declines in agreement compared to previous years. Despite this, clinician perceptions of POCTs' abilities to enhance patient-provider communication remained stable. Evolving concerns may reflect heightened expectations and greater scrutiny as these technologies become commonplace. Agreement that POCTs may undermine clinical expertise increases, while concerns related to reimbursement and usability decline. Pilot questions related to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) indicated moderate openness to adopting AI-enhanced POCTs, particularly with tools offering novel clinical insights. Conclusions: While POCTs continue to be an asset in clinical settings, the findings of this study suggest a shift in provider attitudes toward a more neutral standpoint. Limitations include a low response rate, self-selection, and missing demographic data from a subset of participants. Future surveys will further integrate AI/ML-related questions while prioritizing broader demographic and geographic reach.
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.