ArticleBMC primary care2026
Perspectives on innovation of the diagnostic process in general practice: Q-methodological study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmid growing demands, workforce shortages, and rising costs, the evolving role of diagnostics—driven by technological innovation—underscores the urgent need to rethink the diagnostic process with stakeholders at the center. Knowledge on their perspectives on innovation of the diagnostic process is lacking, while it could ensure alignment with their needs and expectations.
aimTo identify perspectives on innovation of the diagnostic process in general practice care. DESIGN AND
settingQ-methodological study with stakeholders with different profiles but an informed opinion on the topic.
methodParticipants individually sorted 57 statements based on what they thought is most important for innovation of the diagnostic process in general practice care. Statements were collected from literature, media, and group meetings. Factor analyses identified different perspectives, which were subsequently holistically interpreted.
resultsWe identified five perspectives: 1-innovation through diagnostic transformation, 2-innovation in communication, 3-innovation from a doctor-centered perspective, 4-system reform before innovation: fixing the foundation first, and 5-ambivalence towards innovation. The perspectives differed mostly in their urge for system change and the role for technology in innovation. In some perspectives, changes in the current or future diagnostic system were identified, whereas in others not. Also, the degree to which technology was deemed as the promising way forward differed between the perspectives.
conclusionThis study gives insight into prevailing perspectives of stakeholders on innovation of the diagnostic process in general practice care. Each perspective offers valuable insights, as all are essential for successful innovation of the diagnostic process.
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.