Article Text

A qualitative study of GP, NP and patient views about the use of rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) in primary care: ‘swamped with sore throats?’
  1. Gerry M Leydon1,
  2. Lisa McDermott1,
  3. Mike Moore1,
  4. Ian Williamson1,
  5. F D Richard Hobbs2,
  6. Tessa Lambton1,
  7. Rebecca Cooper1,
  8. Hugo Henderson1,
  9. Paul Little,
  10. on behalf of the PRISM Investigators
  1. 1Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
  2. 2Department of Primary Care, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Geraldine Leydon; G.M.Leydon{at}


Objective To explore patient and healthcare professionals’ (HCP) views of clinical scores and rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) for acute sore throat.

Design Qualitative semistructured interview study.

Setting UK primary care.

Participants General practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and patients from general practices across Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the West Midlands who were participating in the Primary Care Streptococcal Management (PRISM) study.

Method Semistructured, face-to-face and phone interviews were conducted with GPs, NPs and patients from general practices across Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the West Midlands.

Results 51 participants took part in the study. Of these, 42 were HCPs (29 GPs and 13 NPs) and 9 were patients. HCPs could see a positive role for RADTs in terms of reassurance, as an educational tool for patients, and for aiding inexperienced practitioners, but also had major concerns about RADT use in clinical practice. Particular concerns included the validity of the tests (the role of other bacteria, and carrier states), the tension and possible disconnect with clinical assessment and intuition, the issues of time and resource use and the potential for medicalisation of self-limiting illness. In contrast, however, experience of using RADTs over time seemed to make some participants more positive about using the tests. Moreover, patients were much more positive about the place of RADTs in providing reassurance and in limiting their antibiotic use.

Conclusions It is unlikely that RADTs will have a (comfortable) place in clinical practice in the near future until health professionals’ concerns are met, and they have direct experience of using them. The routine use of clinical scoring systems for acute upper respiratory illness also face important barriers related to clinicians’ perceptions of their utility in the face of clinician experience and intuition.

  • Primary care
  • Qualitative research
  • Respiratory medicine (see Thoracic Medicine)

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: and

Statistics from

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.