ArticleBMJ open2025
User perspectives, challenges and opportunities in the implementation of protein-to-creatinine dipstick test for proteinuria detection in Ghana: a mixed methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the appropriateness, acceptability and feasibility of implementing the Test-it PrCr Urinalysis Dipstick Test (LifeAssay Diagnostics, South Africa) in referral hospitals in Ghana.
participants96 healthcare professionals were trained on the protein-to-creatinine (PrCr) test, which was integrated into protocols alongside standard-of-care tests between November 2021 and April 2022. Test users completed questionnaires post training. Three focus group discussions (FGDs) and seven key informant interviews were conducted to evaluate test procedure comprehension, insights into training effectiveness, usability/user confidence, perceptions, attitudes towards the test and barriers and facilitators of use.
resultsHigh product usability, user confidence and satisfaction were reported. Staff perceived the test as easy to use and similar to current products. Misinterpretations of test results were less likely for strong results. Facilitators of use included effective trainings, sensitisation of the product and key stakeholder endorsement. Challenges impacting implementation feasibility included the short shelf life of test strips (3 months) after opening cannisters, the added complexity of the ratiometric result interpretation and the test's lack of other parameters that are included in current products (eg, glucose, nitrate), limiting its broader clinical utility for antenatal care screening. All FGD participants agreed that the use of the PrCr test would not change current practices/protocols for dipstick use.
conclusionAlthough the Test-It PrCr test is easy to use and well accepted, key product attributes limit its implementation feasibility in this setting. It may be more appropriate for monitoring high-risk women in this context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.