ArticleBMC primary care2025
Knowledge, attitudes, and practice around urinary tract infections of general practice assistants in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional internet survey.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn Dutch general practice, urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the most common indication for prescribing antibiotics. General practice assistants (GPAs) are the first point of contact for patients with UTI-associated symptoms and sometimes even manage these cases without consulting a general practitioner. Nevertheless, literature on how GPAs provide and experience UTI-care is limited.
methodsTo investigate the knowledge, attitude, and practice of Dutch GPAs regarding UTIs in general practice, we constructed a cross-sectional online survey. The survey assessed actively working Dutch GPAs' knowledge, practice, and attitude in UTI-care. Participants were recruited through social media platforms in May and June 2024. Descriptive statistics were used to perform primary data-analysis. Secondary analysis was performed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.
results478 of the 643 obtained responses were eligible for analysis. Results showed 95.8% of the GPAs think their UTI knowledge is sufficient. However, only one-fourth of respondents selected all correct groups at higher risk of developing a complicated UTI. Additionally, almost 70% of the respondents would perform urinalysis as a precaution if a patient hands in urine, even when UTI-associated symptoms are absent. Nine out of ten GPAs would never disregard urinalysis results. Furthermore, while GPAs indicated to apply shared decision-making often, wait-and-see policies are not regularly advised.
conclusionsGPAs seem to be unaware of their limitations regarding UTI-care, especially overvaluing the urine dipstick as a diagnostic tool. GPAs should adjust their preconceived notions of patient preferences, since patients' willingness to try non-antibiotic treatments is higher than they think.
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.