Use of point-of-care tests among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Saxony, Germany
There is little knowledge about the use of point-of-care (POC) tests among general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this study was to determine which POC tests are known and used by GPs and how they estimate the usefulness of those tests. The use of POC tests among GPs and university-associated gener...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Rural and remote health 2016-01, Vol.16 (1), p.3552-3552 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 3552 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 3552 |
container_title | Rural and remote health |
container_volume | 16 |
creator | Frese, Thomas Steger, Kathleen Deutsch, Tobias Schmid, Gordian L Sandholzer, Hagen |
description | There is little knowledge about the use of point-of-care (POC) tests among general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this study was to determine which POC tests are known and used by GPs and how they estimate the usefulness of those tests. The use of POC tests among GPs and university-associated general practitioners who teach undergraduates (GPTUs) was elucidated. Differences between GPs working in urban and rural areas were also investigated.
The knowledge, utilisation and usefulness (as estimated by the responders) of 27 POC tests were assessed with a self-designed questionnaire in a random sample of GPs (n=244) and GPTUs (n=48) in Saxony, Germany.
A total of 63 GPs and 31 GPTUs (response rates 26.5% and 64.6%, respectively) responded. No relevant difference between GPs and GPTUs was found. The GPs were familiar with 22.5±4.5 (mean ± standard deviation) of the laboratory parameters, the GPTUs with 22.9±4.3 (p=0.427). The amount of recognised POC tests was 11.6±4.9 vs 12.4±5.5 (GPs vs GPTUs; p=0.441). The amount of utilised POC tests was 5.5±2.3 vs 6.0±2.5 (GPs vs GPTUs; p=0.431). Rural GPs were familiar with more POC tests than urban GPs (mean number of tests (rural vs urban): 13.3±5.5 vs 10.6±4.4; p=0.011), but there was no difference in the amount of utilised POC tests. Twelve of the 27 POC tests were estimated as useful by more than 50% of the responders who answered this item.
Only a limited number of rapid tests are estimated as useful and are used by GPs in Saxony. |
doi_str_mv | 10.22605/RRH3552 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1775633604</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1775633604</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c278t-4b44488be9770dea6cb04c08f6d901c0885929d2680fdb5b265b2837bdbf5d413</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkEtLw0AUhQdRbK2Cv0Bm6cLoZN5xJ0VboSBUuw7zSokkmTiTQPPvjbU-Fpdz7-XjwDkAXKboFmOO2N16vSSM4SMwTSllCSeMHv_bJ-AsxneEsEASn4LJqIgQJqZAb6KDvoCtL5su8UViVHCwc7GLUNW-2cKta1xQFWyDMl3ZlX484z1U0AQfYxKd-fqNQOx6O8Cyga9q55vhBi5cqFUznIOTQlXRXRx0BjZPj2_zZbJ6WTzPH1aJwUJ2CdWUUim1y4RA1iluNKIGyYLbDKXjIlmGM4u5RIXVTGM-jiRCW10wS1MyA9ffvm3wH_2YIK_LaFxVqcb5PuapEIwTwhH9Q_cZgivyNpS1CkOeonzfaH5odESvDq69rp39BX8qJJ-YQ3CS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1775633604</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Use of point-of-care tests among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Saxony, Germany</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Frese, Thomas ; Steger, Kathleen ; Deutsch, Tobias ; Schmid, Gordian L ; Sandholzer, Hagen</creator><creatorcontrib>Frese, Thomas ; Steger, Kathleen ; Deutsch, Tobias ; Schmid, Gordian L ; Sandholzer, Hagen</creatorcontrib><description>There is little knowledge about the use of point-of-care (POC) tests among general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this study was to determine which POC tests are known and used by GPs and how they estimate the usefulness of those tests. The use of POC tests among GPs and university-associated general practitioners who teach undergraduates (GPTUs) was elucidated. Differences between GPs working in urban and rural areas were also investigated.
The knowledge, utilisation and usefulness (as estimated by the responders) of 27 POC tests were assessed with a self-designed questionnaire in a random sample of GPs (n=244) and GPTUs (n=48) in Saxony, Germany.
A total of 63 GPs and 31 GPTUs (response rates 26.5% and 64.6%, respectively) responded. No relevant difference between GPs and GPTUs was found. The GPs were familiar with 22.5±4.5 (mean ± standard deviation) of the laboratory parameters, the GPTUs with 22.9±4.3 (p=0.427). The amount of recognised POC tests was 11.6±4.9 vs 12.4±5.5 (GPs vs GPTUs; p=0.441). The amount of utilised POC tests was 5.5±2.3 vs 6.0±2.5 (GPs vs GPTUs; p=0.431). Rural GPs were familiar with more POC tests than urban GPs (mean number of tests (rural vs urban): 13.3±5.5 vs 10.6±4.4; p=0.011), but there was no difference in the amount of utilised POC tests. Twelve of the 27 POC tests were estimated as useful by more than 50% of the responders who answered this item.
Only a limited number of rapid tests are estimated as useful and are used by GPs in Saxony.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1445-6354</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1445-6354</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.22605/RRH3552</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27003357</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia</publisher><subject>Clinical Competence ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Family Practice - organization & administration ; Family Practice - statistics & numerical data ; Female ; General Practitioners - organization & administration ; General Practitioners - statistics & numerical data ; Germany - epidemiology ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Humans ; Male ; Point-of-Care Testing - utilization ; Professional Practice Location - statistics & numerical data</subject><ispartof>Rural and remote health, 2016-01, Vol.16 (1), p.3552-3552</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27003357$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Frese, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steger, Kathleen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deutsch, Tobias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmid, Gordian L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandholzer, Hagen</creatorcontrib><title>Use of point-of-care tests among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Saxony, Germany</title><title>Rural and remote health</title><addtitle>Rural Remote Health</addtitle><description>There is little knowledge about the use of point-of-care (POC) tests among general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this study was to determine which POC tests are known and used by GPs and how they estimate the usefulness of those tests. The use of POC tests among GPs and university-associated general practitioners who teach undergraduates (GPTUs) was elucidated. Differences between GPs working in urban and rural areas were also investigated.
The knowledge, utilisation and usefulness (as estimated by the responders) of 27 POC tests were assessed with a self-designed questionnaire in a random sample of GPs (n=244) and GPTUs (n=48) in Saxony, Germany.
A total of 63 GPs and 31 GPTUs (response rates 26.5% and 64.6%, respectively) responded. No relevant difference between GPs and GPTUs was found. The GPs were familiar with 22.5±4.5 (mean ± standard deviation) of the laboratory parameters, the GPTUs with 22.9±4.3 (p=0.427). The amount of recognised POC tests was 11.6±4.9 vs 12.4±5.5 (GPs vs GPTUs; p=0.441). The amount of utilised POC tests was 5.5±2.3 vs 6.0±2.5 (GPs vs GPTUs; p=0.431). Rural GPs were familiar with more POC tests than urban GPs (mean number of tests (rural vs urban): 13.3±5.5 vs 10.6±4.4; p=0.011), but there was no difference in the amount of utilised POC tests. Twelve of the 27 POC tests were estimated as useful by more than 50% of the responders who answered this item.
Only a limited number of rapid tests are estimated as useful and are used by GPs in Saxony.</description><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Family Practice - organization & administration</subject><subject>Family Practice - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>General Practitioners - organization & administration</subject><subject>General Practitioners - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Germany - epidemiology</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Point-of-Care Testing - utilization</subject><subject>Professional Practice Location - statistics & numerical data</subject><issn>1445-6354</issn><issn>1445-6354</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkEtLw0AUhQdRbK2Cv0Bm6cLoZN5xJ0VboSBUuw7zSokkmTiTQPPvjbU-Fpdz7-XjwDkAXKboFmOO2N16vSSM4SMwTSllCSeMHv_bJ-AsxneEsEASn4LJqIgQJqZAb6KDvoCtL5su8UViVHCwc7GLUNW-2cKta1xQFWyDMl3ZlX484z1U0AQfYxKd-fqNQOx6O8Cyga9q55vhBi5cqFUznIOTQlXRXRx0BjZPj2_zZbJ6WTzPH1aJwUJ2CdWUUim1y4RA1iluNKIGyYLbDKXjIlmGM4u5RIXVTGM-jiRCW10wS1MyA9ffvm3wH_2YIK_LaFxVqcb5PuapEIwTwhH9Q_cZgivyNpS1CkOeonzfaH5odESvDq69rp39BX8qJJ-YQ3CS</recordid><startdate>20160101</startdate><enddate>20160101</enddate><creator>Frese, Thomas</creator><creator>Steger, Kathleen</creator><creator>Deutsch, Tobias</creator><creator>Schmid, Gordian L</creator><creator>Sandholzer, Hagen</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160101</creationdate><title>Use of point-of-care tests among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Saxony, Germany</title><author>Frese, Thomas ; Steger, Kathleen ; Deutsch, Tobias ; Schmid, Gordian L ; Sandholzer, Hagen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c278t-4b44488be9770dea6cb04c08f6d901c0885929d2680fdb5b265b2837bdbf5d413</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Family Practice - organization & administration</topic><topic>Family Practice - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>General Practitioners - organization & administration</topic><topic>General Practitioners - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Germany - epidemiology</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Point-of-Care Testing - utilization</topic><topic>Professional Practice Location - statistics & numerical data</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Frese, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steger, Kathleen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deutsch, Tobias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmid, Gordian L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandholzer, Hagen</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Rural and remote health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Frese, Thomas</au><au>Steger, Kathleen</au><au>Deutsch, Tobias</au><au>Schmid, Gordian L</au><au>Sandholzer, Hagen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Use of point-of-care tests among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Saxony, Germany</atitle><jtitle>Rural and remote health</jtitle><addtitle>Rural Remote Health</addtitle><date>2016-01-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>3552</spage><epage>3552</epage><pages>3552-3552</pages><issn>1445-6354</issn><eissn>1445-6354</eissn><abstract>There is little knowledge about the use of point-of-care (POC) tests among general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this study was to determine which POC tests are known and used by GPs and how they estimate the usefulness of those tests. The use of POC tests among GPs and university-associated general practitioners who teach undergraduates (GPTUs) was elucidated. Differences between GPs working in urban and rural areas were also investigated.
The knowledge, utilisation and usefulness (as estimated by the responders) of 27 POC tests were assessed with a self-designed questionnaire in a random sample of GPs (n=244) and GPTUs (n=48) in Saxony, Germany.
A total of 63 GPs and 31 GPTUs (response rates 26.5% and 64.6%, respectively) responded. No relevant difference between GPs and GPTUs was found. The GPs were familiar with 22.5±4.5 (mean ± standard deviation) of the laboratory parameters, the GPTUs with 22.9±4.3 (p=0.427). The amount of recognised POC tests was 11.6±4.9 vs 12.4±5.5 (GPs vs GPTUs; p=0.441). The amount of utilised POC tests was 5.5±2.3 vs 6.0±2.5 (GPs vs GPTUs; p=0.431). Rural GPs were familiar with more POC tests than urban GPs (mean number of tests (rural vs urban): 13.3±5.5 vs 10.6±4.4; p=0.011), but there was no difference in the amount of utilised POC tests. Twelve of the 27 POC tests were estimated as useful by more than 50% of the responders who answered this item.
Only a limited number of rapid tests are estimated as useful and are used by GPs in Saxony.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pmid>27003357</pmid><doi>10.22605/RRH3552</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1445-6354 |
ispartof | Rural and remote health, 2016-01, Vol.16 (1), p.3552-3552 |
issn | 1445-6354 1445-6354 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1775633604 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
subjects | Clinical Competence Cross-Sectional Studies Family Practice - organization & administration Family Practice - statistics & numerical data Female General Practitioners - organization & administration General Practitioners - statistics & numerical data Germany - epidemiology Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice Humans Male Point-of-Care Testing - utilization Professional Practice Location - statistics & numerical data |
title | Use of point-of-care tests among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Saxony, Germany |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T18%3A02%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Use%20of%20point-of-care%20tests%20among%20general%20practitioners:%20a%20cross-sectional%20study%20in%20Saxony,%20Germany&rft.jtitle=Rural%20and%20remote%20health&rft.au=Frese,%20Thomas&rft.date=2016-01-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=3552&rft.epage=3552&rft.pages=3552-3552&rft.issn=1445-6354&rft.eissn=1445-6354&rft_id=info:doi/10.22605/RRH3552&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1775633604%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1775633604&rft_id=info:pmid/27003357&rfr_iscdi=true |