↓ Skip to main content

Near-patient tests and the clinical gaze in decision-making of Swedish GPs not following current guidelines for sore throat – a qualitative interview study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Near-patient tests and the clinical gaze in decision-making of Swedish GPs not following current guidelines for sore throat – a qualitative interview study
Published in
BMC Primary Care, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-015-0285-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hedvig Gröndal, Katarina Hedin, Eva Lena Strandberg, Malin André, Annika Brorsson

Abstract

Excessive antibiotics use increases the risk of resistance. Previous studies have shown that the Centor score combined with Rapid Antigen Detection Test (RADT) for Group A Streptococci can reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing in patients with sore throat. According to the former Swedish guidelines RADT was recommended with 2-4 Centor criteria present and antibiotics were recommended if the test was positive. C- reactive protein (CRP) was not recommended for sore throats. Inappropriate use of RADT and CRP has been reported in several studies. From a larger project 16 general practitioners (GPs) who stated management of sore throats not according to the guidelines were identified. Half-hour long semi-structured interviews were conducted. The topics were the management of sore throats and the use of near-patient tests. Qualitative content analysis was used. The use of the near-patient test interplayed with the clinical assessment and the perception that all infections caused by bacteria should be treated with antibiotics. The GPs expressed a belief that the clinical picture was sufficient for diagnosis in typical cases. RADT was not believed to be relevant since it detects only one bacterium, while CRP was considered as a reliable numerical measure of bacterial infection. Inappropriate use of near-patient test can partly be understood as remnants of outdated knowledge. When new guidelines are introduced the differences between them and the former need to be discussed more explicitly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 24%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 36%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,188,791
of 25,522,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,383
of 2,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,202
of 276,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#23
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,522,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.