MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984759165 · doi:10.2196/14186

Feasibility of Point-of-Care Testing for Influenza Within a National Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network in England: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

2019· article· en· W2984759165 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Simon de Lusignan, Uy Hoang, Harshana Liyanage, Ivelina Yonova, Filipa Ferreira, Javier Díez‐Domingo, Tristan Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsProtocol (science)MedicinePoint-of-care testingPoint of carePrimary careFamily medicineMedical emergencyNursingAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing (POCT) for influenza promises to provide real-time information to influence clinical decision making and improve patient outcomes. Public Health England has published a toolkit to assist implementation of these tests in the UK National Health Service. OBJECTIVE: A feasibility study will be undertaken to assess the implementation of influenza POCT in primary care as part of a sentinel surveillance network. METHODS: We will conduct a mixed methods study to compare the sampling rates in practices using POCT and current virology swabbing practices not using POCT, and to understand the issues and barriers to implementation of influenza POCT in primary care workflows. The study will take place between March and May 2019. It will be nested in general practices that are part of the English national sentinel surveillance network run by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. The primary outcome is the number of valid influenza swabs taken and tested by the practices involved in the study using the new POCT. RESULTS: A total of 6 practices were recruited, and data collection commenced on March 11, 2019. Moreover, 312 swab samples had been collected at the time of submission of the protocol, which was 32.5% (312/960) of the expected sample size. In addition, 68 samples were positive for influenza, which was 20.1% (68/338) of the expected sample size. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time an evaluation study has been undertaken on POCT for influenza in general practice in the United Kingdom. This proposed study promises to shed light on the feasibility of implementation of POCT in primary care and on the views of practitioners about the use of influenza POCT in primary care, including its impact on primary care workflows. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/14186.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.147
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1470.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.012

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.457
GPT teacher head0.634
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207