title: Use of point-of-care tests among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Saxony, Germany.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  There is little knowledge about the use of point-of-care (POC) tests among general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this study was to determine which POC tests are known and used by GPs and how they estimate the usefulness of those tests. The use of POC tests among GPs and university-associated general practitioners who teach undergraduates (GPTUs) was elucidated. Differences between GPs working in urban and rural areas were also investigated.
  
  
  METHODS
  The knowledge, utilisation and usefulness (as estimated by the responders) of 27 POC tests were assessed with a self-designed questionnaire in a random sample of GPs (n=244) and GPTUs (n=48) in Saxony, Germany.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 63 GPs and 31 GPTUs (response rates 26.5% and 64.6%, respectively) responded. No relevant difference between GPs and GPTUs was found. The GPs were familiar with 22.5±4.5 (mean ± standard deviation) of the laboratory parameters, the GPTUs with 22.9±4.3 (p=0.427). The amount of recognised POC tests was 11.6±4.9 vs 12.4±5.5 (GPs vs GPTUs; p=0.441). The amount of utilised POC tests was 5.5±2.3 vs 6.0±2.5 (GPs vs GPTUs; p=0.431). Rural GPs were familiar with more POC tests than urban GPs (mean number of tests (rural vs urban): 13.3±5.5 vs 10.6±4.4; p=0.011), but there was no difference in the amount of utilised POC tests. Twelve of the 27 POC tests were estimated as useful by more than 50% of the responders who answered this item.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Only a limited number of rapid tests are estimated as useful and are used by GPs in Saxony.
authors.affiliation: Department of Primary Care, Leipzig Medical School, Leipzig, Germany. mail@thomasfrese.de.
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Frese
authors.affiliation: Department of Primary Care, Leipzig Medical School, Leipzig, Germany. kathleen.scheller@web.de.
authors.forename: Kathleen
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Steger
authors.affiliation: Department of Primary Care, Leipzig Medical School, Leipzig, Germany. tobias.deutsch@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
authors.forename: Tobias
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Deutsch
authors.affiliation: Department of Primary Care, Leipzig Medical School, Leipzig, Germany. gordian.schmid@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
authors.forename: Gordian L
authors.initials: GL
authors.lastname: Schmid
authors.affiliation: Department of Primary Care, Leipzig Medical School, Leipzig, Germany. britt.haeusler@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
authors.forename: Hagen
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Sandholzer
mesh_terms: D002983:Clinical Competence; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005194:Family Practice / Q000458:organization & administration / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005260:Female; D058005:General Practitioners / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D005858:Germany / Q000453:epidemiology; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D000067716:Point-of-Care Testing / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011365:Professional Practice Location / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*
keywords: Economics; Europe; General/Family Practice; Medical; Public Health