Objectives There are numerous point‐of‐care tests (POCTs) available on the market, but many of these are not used. This study reviewed literature pertaining to the evaluation/usage of POCTs in primary care, to investigate whether outcomes being reported reflect aspects previously demonstrated to be important for general practitioners (GPs) in the decision to implement a POCT in practice. Methods Scopus and Medline were searched to identify studies that evaluated a POCT in primary care. We identified abstracts and full‐texts consisting of applied studies (eg trials, simulations, observational studies) and qualitative studies (eg interviews, surveys). Data were extracted from the included studies, such as the type of study, the extent to which manufacturers were involved in the study, and the biomarker/assay measured by the test(s). Studies were evaluated to summarise the extent to which they reported on, amongst others, clinical utility, user‐friendliness, turnaround‐time and technical performance (aspects previously identified as important). Results The initial search resulted in 1398 publications, of which 125 met the inclusion criteria. From these studies, 83 POCTs across several disease areas (including cardiovascular disease, venous thromboembolism and respiratory‐tract‐infections) were identified. There was an inconsistency between what is reported in the studies and what GPs consider important. GPs perceive clinical utility as the most important aspect, yet this was rarely included explicitly in test evaluations in the literature, with only 8% of evaluations incorporating it in their analysis/discussion. Conclusions This review showed that, despite the growing market and development of new POCTs, studies evaluating such tests fail to report on aspects that GPs find important. To ensure that an evaluation of a POCT is useful to primary care clinicians, future evaluations should not only focus on the technical performance aspects of a test, but also report on the aspects relating to the clinical utility and risks.

Objective Point-of-care testing (POCT) has become an essential diagnostic technology for optimal patient care. Its implementation, however, still falls behind. This paper reviews the available evidence on the health economic impact of introducing POCT to assess if poor POCT uptake may be related to lacking evidence. Study Design The Scopus and PubMed databases were searched to identify publications describing a health economic evaluation of a point-of-care (POC) test. Data were extracted from the included publications, including general and methodological characteristics as well as the study results summarized in either cost, effects or an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results were sorted into six groups according to the POC test’s purpose (diagnosis, screening or monitoring) and care setting (primary care or secondary care). The reporting quality of the publications was determined using the CHEERS checklist. Results The initial search resulted in 396 publications, of which 44 met the inclusion criteria. Most of the evaluations were performed in a primary care setting ( n = 31; 70.5%) compared with a secondary care setting ( n = 13; 29.5%). About two thirds of the evaluations were on POC tests implemented with a diagnostic purpose ( n = 28; 63.6%). More than 75% of evaluations concluded that POCT is recommended for implementation, although in some cases only under specific circumstances and conditions. Compliance with the CHEERS checklist items ranged from 20.8% to 100%, with an average reporting quality of 72.0%. Conclusion There were very few evaluations in this review that advised against the implementation of POCT. However, the uptake of POCT in many countries remains low. Even though the evaluations included in this review did not always include the full long-term benefits of POCT, it is clear that health economic evidence across a few dimensions of value already indicate the benefits of POCT. This suggests that the lack of evidence on POCT is not the primary barrier to its implementation and that the low uptake of these tests in clinical practice is due to (a combination of) other barriers. In this context, aspects around organization of care, support of clinicians and quality management may be crucial in the widespread implementation of POCT. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-020-00248-1.

Background: In some countries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, point of care testing (POCT) is more widely implemented in general practice compared to countries such as England and Australia. To comprehend what is necessary to realize the benefits of POCT, regarding its integration in primary care, it would be beneficial to have an overview of the structure of healthcare operations and the transactions between stakeholders (also referred to as value networks). The aim of this paper is to identify the current value networks in place applying to POCT implementation at general practices (GPs) in England, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands and to compare these networks in terms of seven previously published factors that support the successful implementation, sustainability and scale-up of innovations. Methods: The value networks were described based on formal guidelines and standards published by the respective governments, organizational bodies and affiliates. The value network of each country was validated by at least two relevant stakeholders from the respective country. Results: The analysis revealed that the biggest challenge for countries with low POCT uptake was the lack of effective communication between the several organizations involved with POCT as well as the high workload for GPs aiming to implement POCT. It is observed that countries with a single national authority responsible for POCT have a better uptake as they can govern the task of POCT roll-out and management and reduce the workload for GPs by assisting with set-up, quality control, training and support. Conclusion: Setting up a single national authority may be an effective step towards realizing the full benefits of POCT. Although it is possible for day-to-day operations to fall under the responsibility of the GP, this is only feasible if support and guidance are readily available to ensure that the workload associated with POCT is limited and as low as possible.

Most partial value functions displayed non-linearities and were similar in shape, indicating that the scoring scale of the EVIDEM should not automatically be used as interval scales. Scores need to be adjusted by their partial value functions before calculating the aggregate score.

No abstract