SynthesisBMC public health2026
Point-of-care testing for non-communicable diseases and health literacy outcomes: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth literacy responsiveness has been identified as a key action area in reducing the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), which are a leading cause of death worldwide. Point-of-care (POC) testing has the potential to improve health literacy in individuals and communities. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the literature regarding POC testing for NCDs and health literacy outcomes.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across seven databases, Medline (via OVID), PsycINFO, Emcare, Scopus, ProQuest (Health databases), CINAHL, and Web of Science, between May 2018 and May 2023. Studies that investigated the utilisation of a POC device for measurement of NCD markers, and reported at least one outcome measure of health literacy in individuals over 10 years old were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results were mapped to the five WHO health literacy actions through narrative synthesis.
resultsThirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, primarily investigating POC assessment of diabetes, with some examining lipids or coagulation. Study cohorts were geographically limited to eight countries in predominantly high-income settings. Following POC testing relevant to diabetes and cardiovascular contexts, patients reported an enhanced understanding of health, motivation to make positive lifestyle changes, increased quality of life and decreased worry, increased confidence, and improved health markers.
conclusionThe findings from this review suggest that POC testing may support improvements in individual health literacy outcomes relevant to NCD management, specifically in diabetes and cardiovascular contexts. These findings reflect the potential of POC testing to contribute to more responsive health systems, by improving accessibility, results delivery, and communication of health information. However, the evidence base is limited in scope, and findings may not necessarily be generalisable. Future studies should prioritise examining a broader range of NCDs, particularly in underdeveloped regions, and employ specific validated health literacy tools. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022348011.
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.