Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 17, 2026
Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Testing Analyzer for Measuring Peripheral Blood Leukocytes
Published on: March 22, 2022
Acceptability of capillary point-of-care testing: a systematic review
Danielle April Dunnett1,2, Cecilia Casetta3,2, Ebenezer Oloyede2
1King's College London Institute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK Danielle.2.Dunnett@kcl.ac.uk.
Objective:
To identify and synthesise evidence on the acceptability and perceived experience of finger-prick point-of-care testing (POCT) among patients and clinicians across healthcare settings.
Design:
Systematic review conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines.
Data Sources:
Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched from inception to January 2024 and re-run in July 2025, supplemented by citation tracking of relevant studies.
Eligibility Criteria:
Studies reporting patient and clinicians' experiences, perceptions, satisfaction or acceptability relating to finger-prick POCT for any health condition or blood parameter were eligible. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods designs were included.
Data Extraction And Synthesis:
Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and synthesised using thematic analysis and narrative synthesis. Methodological quality was appraised using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool.
Results:
21 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 9128 participants (17 quantitative, 3 qualitative, 1 mixed methods). Across diverse clinical contexts, finger-prick POCT was reported as generally acceptable, less distressing and perceived as a convenient alternative to venous sampling in comparative studies. Thematic synthesis identified two major themes: (1) enhancing the patient-clinician relationship through improved engagement, communication and understanding of care and (2) clinical implications of finger-prick POCT on clinicians' workflow, confidence and skill acquisition. Finger-prick POCT was perceived to promote personalised consultations, enable immediate discussion of results and streamline decision-making. Clinicians highlighted its potential to expand task sharing, improve efficiency and strengthen continuity of care, although concerns regarding training, reliability and quality assurance were identified.
Conclusions:
Finger-prick POCT is generally acceptable to patients and clinicians, improving comfort, convenience, engagement and perceived efficiency. Implementation should prioritise training, infrastructure and quality assurance frameworks to maximise clinical and experiential benefits.
Prospero Registration Number:
CRD42024512130.
