Evidence mapPaperPMID 39374979Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2025

Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.

Helen Nankervis, Alyson L Huntley, Penny Whiting, William Hamilton, Hardeep Singh, Sarah Dawson, Rachel O'Donnell, Jane Sprackman, Anna Ferguson Montague, Jessica Watson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Helen NankervisPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0003-4352-1626
Alyson L HuntleyPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0001-9409-7891
Penny WhitingPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.ORCID 0000-0003-1138-5682
William HamiltonUniversity of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1611-1373
Hardeep SinghCenter for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, US.ORCID 0000-0002-4419-8974
Sarah DawsonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8276-0374
Rachel O'DonnellPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4354-8135
Jane SprackmanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0009-0000-9970-7185
Anna Ferguson MontaguePopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jessica WatsonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8177-6438

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS028595AHRQ HHS R01 HS029318AHRQ HHS R18 HS029347
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline records access, including test results, was rolled out as part of changes to the GP contract in England in 2023. Blood test result communication is important for patient-centred care, patient safety, and primary care workload. Evidence is needed to ensure that test results are communicated safely and efficiently to patients in primary care.

aimTo summarise existing evidence for blood test result communication between primary care providers and their patients and carers. DESIGN AND

settingA mixed-methods systematic review was undertaken.

methodMEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2013-September 2023. Qualitative or quantitative studies that provided information on the communication of blood test results by primary care staff to adult patients and carers were eligible for inclusion.

resultsThere were 71 included studies, including 10 experimental studies and no randomised controlled trials. Study quality was mostly poor and risk of bias was high, partly owing to a lack of reported information. The studies found that patients want more information about their blood test results, particularly in terms of 'what next', and prefer results to be provided quickly. Electronic methods, such as online access or text messages, were generally well accepted but not by everyone, and not for all results. Clinicians' opinions were mixed as to whether online direct release of test results to patients was beneficial or could cause problems, such as increased patient anxiety and increased workload.

conclusionA range of evidence has been identified on patient and clinician preferences, and barriers and facilitators to test communication, which is particularly important in the current NHS context of a move towards patient online access.

Indexed as

CommunicationHematologic TestsPrimary Health CareHumansPatient-Centered CarePhysician-Patient Relationscommunicationhaematologic testsprimary health caresystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39374979
PMCPMC11881010

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.