Dataset Information

A qualitative study of GP, NP and patient views about the use of rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) in primary care: 'swamped with sore throats?'.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore patient and healthcare professionals' (HCP) views of clinical scores and rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) for acute sore throat.

Design

Qualitative semistructured interview study.

Setting

UK primary care.

Participants

General practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and patients from general practices across Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the West Midlands who were participating in the Primary Care Streptococcal Management (PRISM) study.

Method

Semistructured, face-to-face and phone interviews were conducted with GPs, NPs and patients from general practices across Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the West Midlands.

Results

51 participants took part in the study. Of these, 42 were HCPs (29 GPs and 13 NPs) and 9 were patients. HCPs could see a positive role for RADTs in terms of reassurance, as an educational tool for patients, and for aiding inexperienced practitioners, but also had major concerns about RADT use in clinical practice. Particular concerns included the validity of the tests (the role of other bacteria, and carrier states), the tension and possible disconnect with clinical assessment and intuition, the issues of time and resource use and the potential for medicalisation of self-limiting illness. In contrast, however, experience of using RADTs over time seemed to make some participants more positive about using the tests. Moreover, patients were much more positive about the place of RADTs in providing reassurance and in limiting their antibiotic use.

Conclusions

It is unlikely that RADTs will have a (comfortable) place in clinical practice in the near future until health professionals' concerns are met, and they have direct experience of using them. The routine use of clinical scoring systems for acute upper respiratory illness also face important barriers related to clinicians' perceptions of their utility in the face of clinician experience and intuition.

SUBMITTER: Leydon GM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3641470 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A qualitative study of GP, NP and patient views about the use of rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) in primary care: 'swamped with sore throats?'.

Leydon Gerry M GM McDermott Lisa L Moore Mike M Williamson Ian I Hobbs F D Richard FD Lambton Tessa T Cooper Rebecca R Henderson Hugo H Little Paul P

BMJ open 20130403 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To explore patient and healthcare professionals' (HCP) views of clinical scores and rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) for acute sore throat.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative semistructured interview study.<h4>Setting</h4>UK primary care.<h4>Participants</h4>General practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and patients from general practices across Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the West Midlands who were participating in the Primary Care Streptococcal Management (P ...[more]

PMID: 23558734

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effect of clinical scores that predict streptococcal infection or rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests compared with delayed antibiotic prescribing.DesignOpen adaptive pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care in United Kingdom.PatientsPatients aged ≥ 3 with acute sore throat.InterventionAn internet programme randomised patients to targeted antibiotic use according to: delayed antibiotics (the comparator group for analyses), clinical score, or antigen test used according to clinical score. During the trial a preliminary streptococcal score (score 1, n=1129) was replaced by a more consistent score (score 2, n=631; features: fever during previous 24 hours; purulence; attends rapidly (within three days after onset of symptoms); inflamed tonsils; no cough/coryza (acronym FeverPAIN).OutcomesSymptom severity reported by patients on a 7 point Likert scale (mean severity of sore throat/difficulty swallowing for days two to four after the consultation (primary outcome)), duration of symptoms, use of antibiotics.ResultsFor score 1 there were no significant differences between groups. For score 2, symptom severity was documented in 80% (168/207 (81%) in delayed antibiotics group; 168/211 (80%) in clinical score group; 166/213 (78%) in antigen test group). Reported severity of symptoms was lower in the clinical score group (-0.33, 95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.02; P=0.04), equivalent to one in three rating sore throat a slight versus moderate problem, with a similar reduction for the antigen test group (-0.30, -0.61 to -0.00; P=0.05). Symptoms rated moderately bad or worse resolved significantly faster in the clinical score group (hazard ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.63) but not the antigen test group (1.11, 0.88 to 1.40). In the delayed antibiotics group, 75/164 (46%) used antibiotics. Use of antibiotics in the clinical score group (60/161) was 29% lower (adjusted risk ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.95; P=0.02) and in the antigen test group (58/164) was 27% lower (0.73, 0.52 to 0.98; P=0.03). There were no significant differences in complications or reconsultations.ConclusionTargeted use of antibiotics for acute sore throat with a clinical score improves reported symptoms and reduces antibiotic use. Antigen tests used according to a clinical score provide similar benefits but with no clear advantages over a clinical score alone.Trial registrationISRCTN32027234.

Project description:PurposeThe first aim of this qualitative study was to identify general practitioners' (GPs') views on depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback in primary care. The second aim was to determine the needs and preferences of GPs with respect to GP-targeted feedback to enhance the efficacy of depression screening.MethodsA semistructured qualitative interview was conducted with officially registered GPs in Hamburg (Germany). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive approach was used to code the transcripts.ResultsNine GPs (27 to 70 years; 5 male) from Hamburg, Germany, participated. Regarding depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback, five thematic groups were identified: application of screening; screening and patient-physician relationships; GPs' attitudes towards screening; benefits and concerns related to screening; and GPs' needs and preferences regarding feedback. While the negative aspects of screening can be described in rather general terms (e.g., screening determines the mental health competence, screening threatens the doctor-patient relationship, revealing questions harm the patients), its advantages were very specific (e.g., promoting the identification of undetected cases, relief of the daily workload, wider communication channel to reach more patients). Standardized GP-targeted feedback of the screening results was perceived as helpful and purposeful. GPs preferred feedback materials that eased their clinical workload (e.g., short text with visuals, pictures, or images).ConclusionAddressing GPs' needs is essential when implementing depression screening tools in clinical practice. To overcome prejudices and enhance the efficacy of screening, further education for GPs on the purpose and application on depression screening may be needed. Standardized GP-targeted feedback in combination with depression screening could be the missing link to improve the detection of depression in primary care.

Project description:ObjectivePromotional media coverage of early detection tests is an important driver of overdiagnosis. Following research evidence that global media coverage presents the benefits of testing healthy people far more frequently than harms, and gives little coverage to overdiagnosis, we sought to examine journalists' views on media reporting of tests, overdiagnosis, and strategies to improve critical reporting on tests.DesignQualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were conducted between February and March 2020 and were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.Participants and settingTwenty-two journalists (mainly specialising in health reporting, average 14.5 years' experience) based in Australia.ResultsThis sample of journalists acknowledged the potential harms of medical tests but felt that knowledge of harms was low among journalists and the public at large. Most were aware of the term overdiagnosis, but commonly felt that it is challenging to both understand and communicate in light of strong beliefs in the benefits of early detection. Journalists felt that newsworthiness in the form of major public health impact was the key ingredient for stories about medical tests. The journalists acknowledged that factors, like the press release and 'click bait culture' in particular, can influence the framing of coverage about tests. Lack of knowledge and training, as well as time pressures, were perceived to be the main barriers to critical reporting on tests. Journalists felt that training and better access to information about potential harms would enable more critical reporting.ConclusionsEffectively communicating overdiagnosis is a challenge in light of common beliefs about the benefits of testing and the culture of current journalism practices. Providing journalists with training, support and better access to information about potential harms of tests could aid critical reporting of tests.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore general practitioner (GP) and ears, nose and throat (ENT) specialist perspectives of current treatment strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and care pathways through primary and secondary care.DesignSemi-structured qualitative telephone interviews as part of the MACRO programme (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic Rhinosinusitis) SETTING: Primary care and secondary care ENT outpatient clinics in the UK.ParticipantsTwelve GPs and 9 ENT specialists consented to in-depth telephone interviews. Transcribed recordings were managed using NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.Main outcome measuresHealthcare professional views of management options and care pathways for CRS.ResultsGPs describe themselves as confident in recognising CRS, with the exception of assessing nasal polyps. In contrast, specialists report common missed diagnoses (eg, allergy; chronic headache) when patients are referred to ENT clinics, and attribute this to the limited ENT training of GPs. Steroid nasal sprays provide the foundation of treatment in primary care, although local prescribing restrictions can affect treatment choice and poor adherence is perceived to be the causes of inadequate symptom control. Symptom severity, poor response to medical treatment and patient pressure drive referral, although there is uncertainty about optimal timing. Treatment decisions in secondary care are based on disease severity, polyp status, prior medical treatment and patient choice, but there is major uncertainty about the place of longer courses of antibiotics and the use of oral steroids. Surgery is regarded as an important treatment option for patients with severe symptoms or with nasal polyps, although timing of surgery remains unclear, and the uncertainty about net long-term benefits of surgery makes balancing of benefits and risks more difficult.ConclusionsClinicians are uncertain about best management of patients with CRS in both primary and secondary care and practice is varied. An integrated care pathway for CRS is needed to improve patient management and timely referral.

Dataset Information

A qualitative study of GP, NP and patient views about the use of rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) in primary care: 'swamped with sore throats?'.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A qualitative study of GP, NP and patient views about the use of rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) in primary care: 'swamped with sore throats?'.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets