ArticleBMJ open2026
Perspectives of clinicians caring for people experiencing homelessness on point of care tests: an online survey.
Article in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPeople experiencing homelessness (PEH) face multiple barriers to seeking healthcare and have poorer health outcomes. Point of care tests (POCTs) provide a potential solution to improving access to diagnostics for this population. This survey aimed to understand if these technologies could address unmet needs in primary care for PEH. DESIGN AND
settingAn online survey was circulated via dedicated inclusion healthcare newsletters to professionals providing community-based care for PEH in England. The survey focused on experiences of diagnostics and opinions on the use of POCTs for this population.
participantsThirty-two healthcare workers participated, including GPs, nurses and other allied practitioners from 13 different Integrated Care Boards across England. ANALYSIS: Descriptive analyses were performed using standard statistical parameters. A reflexive thematic analysis was performed on free-text responses.
resultsThere was evidence of current POCT use but with marked variation across services as to which tests are available. Healthcare workers were overwhelmingly positive about the potential for POCTs, with rapid results facilitating prompt diagnosis and management, increasing likelihood of engagement. C reactive protein testing was considered as the test, which could confer the most benefit to acute care, with renal function and troponin also being discussed, whereas tests to determine cardiometabolic risk were thought to have the most patient benefit in chronic care. Point of care ultrasound for diagnosis of respiratory pathologies and deep vein thrombosis and POCTs for malnutrition were suggested as potential future technologies to address unmet healthcare needs.
conclusionThe majority of responders expressed that enhancing the provision of POCTs would be beneficial, both in acute and chronic care scenarios, due to the benefits of getting rapid results and reducing the need for repeat appointments or onward referral for diagnostics.
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.