Skip to main content

ResearchHubLoading navigation…

Loading ResearchHub…

Explore the network

Research, people, journals and institutions — all in one place.

Explore

01Research 02Smart search 03Researchers 04Journals 05Institutions 06RHR Rankings 07ResearchHub platform 08Events

Work together

Turn ideas into projects, questions and reusable datasets.

Connect

01Projects 02Questions 03Datasets

Stay informed

Follow trends, opportunities and your research library.

Insights

01Research trends 02Opportunities 03Library 04Research services 05ResearchHub Pro 06Pricing

ResearchHub

Explore ResearchHub.

Personal

01Recommended research 02Research intelligence

Home Search Network Library Log in

ResearchHub

Research, connected

Explore the graph

ResearchGate

Download ResearchHub

GET IT ONGoogle PlayComing soonDownload on theApp StoreComing soonEXPLORE IT ONAppGalleryComing soon

Research

Research Researchers Journals Institutions RHR Rankings

Contribute

Projects Questions Datasets Opportunities

Platform

ResearchHub platform About Blog Community Help API Licensing

Shopping

Contact and support

Need help, have a question, or want to contact the ResearchHub team?

Contact and support support@aresearch.uk

© 2026 ResearchHub. Built for responsible scholarly connection.

Privacy Terms Cookies This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalCC BY 4.0

Privacy-aware community infrastructure

How much evidence is needed before additional testing is incentivised at scale? - ResearchHub

Enriched recordOpen access

How much evidence is needed before additional testing is incentivised at scale?

Martha Elwenspoek, Jonathan Decker, Penny Whiting, Jessica Watson

British Journal of General Practice2026doi:10.3399/bjgp.2026.0357

Abstract

No public abstract is available from the verified source records.

Research graph

Citations: 0
Reference records: 21
Views: 1
Evidence sources: crossrefpubmedeuropepmcunpaywalldatacite

Authors

Martha Elwenspoek#1 Jonathan Decker#3 Penny Whiting#4 Jessica Watson#5

Institutions

No ROR-resolved institution is linked to this work yet.

Provenance

crossref

Confidence 100%

pubmed

Confidence 98%

europepmc

Confidence 96%

unpaywall

Confidence 95%

datacite

Confidence 0%

Referenced works

View all references →

No local reference links have been materialized yet.

Cited by

View all cited-by records →

No local citing links have been materialized yet.

External reference records

Unresolved referenced work

Kept as external metadata until matched

10.1136/bmj.l2319

10.1136/bmj.l2319

Unresolved referenced work

Kept as external metadata until matched

Unresolved referenced work

Kept as external metadata until matched

Unresolved referenced work

Kept as external metadata until matched

Unresolved referenced work

Kept as external metadata until matched

10.3399/bjgpo.2022.0139

10.3399/bjgpo.2022.0139

10.1136/eb-2013-101393

10.1136/eb-2013-101393

10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.092101.134534

10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.092101.134534

10.3399/bjgp19x704309

10.3399/bjgp19x704309

More than half of abnormal results from laboratory tests ordered by family physicians could be false-positive

2018

10.1136/bmj.e3502

10.1136/bmj.e3502

10.3399/bjgp.2025.0143

10.3399/bjgp.2025.0143

10.1186/1748-5908-9-1

10.1186/1748-5908-9-1

10.1016/j.lanprc.2025.100099

10.1016/j.lanprc.2025.100099

10.3399/bjgp.2025.0209

10.3399/bjgp.2025.0209

10.3399/bjgp.2024.0744

10.3399/bjgp.2024.0744

10.1016/s2213-8587(22)00131-0

10.1016/s2213-8587(22)00131-0

10.1136/bmj.h2308

10.1136/bmj.h2308

Unresolved referenced work

Kept as external metadata until matched

Unresolved referenced work

Kept as external metadata until matched

Additional external references

No additional external references are available.