Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23773235›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2013

The contribution of physician assistants in primary care: a systematic review.

Mary Halter, Vari Drennan, Kaushik Chattopadhyay, Wilfred Carneiro, Jennifer Yiallouros, Simon de Lusignan, Heather Gage, Jonathan Gabe, Robert Grant

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mary HalterFaculty of Health and Social Care Sciences, Kingston University and St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, UK. m.halter@sgul.kingston.ac.uk
Vari Drennan
Kaushik Chattopadhyay
Wilfred Carneiro
Jennifer Yiallouros
Simon de Lusignan
Heather Gage
Jonathan Gabe
Robert Grant

Funding

Department of Health 09/1801/1066Department of Health HS&DR/09/1801/1066
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care provision is important in the delivery of health care but many countries face primary care workforce challenges. Increasing demand, enlarged workloads, and current and anticipated physician shortages in many countries have led to the introduction of mid-level professionals, such as Physician Assistants (PAs).

objectiveThis systematic review aimed to appraise the evidence of the contribution of PAs within primary care, defined for this study as general practice, relevant to the UK or similar systems.

methodsMedline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, SSCI and SCOPUS databases were searched from 1950 to 2010. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: PAs with a recognised PA qualification, general practice/family medicine included and the findings relevant to it presented separately and an English language journal publication. Two reviewers independently identified relevant publications, assessed quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools and extracted findings. Findings were classified and synthesised narratively as factors related to structure, process or outcome of care.

results2167 publications were identified, of which 49 met our inclusion criteria, with 46 from the United States of America (USA). Structure: approximately half of PAs are reported to work in primary care in the USA with good support and a willingness to employ amongst doctors. PROCESS: the majority of PAs' workload is the management of patients with acute presentations. PAs tend to see younger patients and a different caseload to doctors, and require supervision. Studies of costs provide mixed results. OUTCOMES: acceptability to patients and potential patients is consistently found to be high, and studies of appropriateness report positively. Overall the evidence was appraised as of weak to moderate quality, with little comparative data presented and little change in research questions over time. LIMITATIONS: identification of a broad range of studies examining 'contribution' made meta analysis or meta synthesis untenable.

conclusionsThe research evidence of the contribution of PAs to primary care was mixed and limited. However, the continued growth in employment of PAs in American primary care suggests that this professional group is judged to be of value by increasing numbers of employers. Further specific studies are needed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about the effectiveness of PAs' contribution to the international primary care workforce.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareWork Schedule ToleranceAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleNetherlandsPhysician AssistantsUnited KingdomUnited StatesWorkforce

Identifiers

PMID23773235
PMCPMC3698179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.