ArticleBMJ open2025
Views of Spanish primary care professionals on respiratory tract infection testing: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementation of C-Reactive Protein Point-of-Care Testing for Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care: A Systematic Review Using the RE-AIM Framework.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory tract infection tests are increasingly available in primary care and are expected to expand in the future. However, there is limited understanding of clinicians' views on their benefits and how to effectively integrate them into daily clinical practice.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to explore healthcare professionals' views on using respiratory tract infection tests to safely reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections in primary care based on their experience in routine practice.
designA qualitative study design was employed. Two focus group discussions were conducted. SETTING AND
participantsThese focus group discussions were conducted in February 2025, involving 18 Spanish primary care professionals, both experts and non-experts in rational antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance. Data were audio-recorded or video-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.
resultsParticipants agreed that respiratory tract infection tests help optimise antibiotic prescriptions, reduce uncertainty, ensure the appropriate consumption of resources and guide treatment based on aetiology. While most professionals view microbiological tests and C-reactive protein testing as complementary, non-experts preferred microbiological tests. Professionals considered that patients value knowing the aetiology over the prognosis, supporting shared decision-making and addressing patients' demands more effectively. Concerns remain about using these tests as stand-alone tools and the medicalisation of self-limiting conditions. Other barriers mentioned included the high cost and time-consuming nature, the need for better professional training and the challenge of managing the increased workload associated with their use.
conclusionsThis study highlights how clinicians perceive respiratory tract infection tests to aid prescribing decisions amid uncertainty. Both positive and negative views were reported. Participants agreed that these tests optimise antibiotic prescriptions and guide treatment, but there are still important barriers to their implementation.
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.