Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

AIM: To describe public perceptions regarding finger-prick testing, back-up antibiotic prescriptions (BUP), and alternatives to traditional consultations for RTIs, and identify factors associated with favouring these approaches. DESIGN AND SETTING: Online national survey (HealthWise Wales) with linked primary care health record data. METHODS: Survey item response distributions were described. Associations between responses about consultation alternatives, BUP and finger-prick point of care testing, and potential explanatory variables, were explored using logistic regression. RESULTS: 8,752 participants completed the survey between 2016 and 2018. 76.7% (3,807/4,966) and 71.2% (3,529/4,953) of respondents with valid responses were in favour of being able to consult with a pharmacist or nurse in their GP surgery, or with a community pharmacist, respectively. 92.8% (8034/8659) of respondents indicated they would be happy to have a finger-prick test to guide antibiotic prescribing, and 31.8% (2746/8646) indicated they would like to be given a BUP if their clinician thought immediate antibiotics were not required. 47.4% (2342/4944) and 42.3% (2095/4949) were in favour of having video and email consultations respectively. Characteristics associated with different response options were identified. CONCLUSION: Consulting with pharmacists, using electronic communication tools, and finger-prick testing are widely acceptable approaches. BUP was described as acceptable less often and is likely to require greater information and support when used.

Original publication




Journal article



Publication Date



Cardiovascular disease, Clinical (general), Clinical (physical), Comorbidity, Continuity of care, Diabetes, Epidemiology, Research methods