Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26056121›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2015

Cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners in primary and specialised ambulatory care: systematic review.

Ruth Martin-Misener, Patricia Harbman, Faith Donald, Kim Reid, Kelley Kilpatrick, Nancy Carter, Denise Bryant-Lukosius, Sharon Kaasalainen, Deborah A Marshall, Renee Charbonneau-Smith and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ruth Martin-MisenerSchool of Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Patricia HarbmanHealth Interventions Research Centre, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Faith DonaldDaphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kim ReidKJResearch, Rosemere, Quebec, Canada.
Kelley KilpatrickFaculty of Nursing, Université de Montreal, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont Research Centre, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Nancy CarterSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Denise Bryant-LukosiusSchool of Nursing and Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sharon KaasalainenSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Deborah A MarshallDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Renee Charbonneau-SmithSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Alba DiCensoSchool of Nursing and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners delivering primary and specialised ambulatory care.

designA systematic review of randomised controlled trials reported since 1980. DATA SOURCES: 10 electronic bibliographic databases, handsearches, contact with authors, bibliographies and websites. INCLUDED STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials that evaluated nurse practitioners in alternative and complementary ambulatory care roles and reported health system outcomes.

results11 trials were included. In four trials of alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but seven patient outcomes favouring nurse practitioner care and in all but four health system outcomes, one favouring nurse practitioner care and three favouring physician care. In a meta-analysis of two studies (2689 patients) with minimal heterogeneity and high-quality evidence, nurse practitioner care resulted in lower mean health services costs per consultation (mean difference: -€6.41; 95% CI -€9.28 to -€3.55; p<0.0001) (2006 euros). In two trials of alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but three patient outcomes and one health system outcome favouring nurse practitioner care. In five trials of complementary provider specialised ambulatory care roles, 16 patient/provider outcomes favouring nurse practitioner plus usual care, and 16 were equivalent. Two health system outcomes favoured nurse practitioner plus usual care, four favoured usual care and 14 were equivalent. Four studies of complementary specialised ambulatory care compared costs, but only one assessed costs and outcomes jointly.

conclusionsNurse practitioners in alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles have equivalent or better patient outcomes than comparators and are potentially cost-saving. Evidence for their cost-effectiveness in alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles is promising, but limited by the few studies. While some evidence indicates nurse practitioners in complementary specialised ambulatory care roles improve patient outcomes, their cost-effectiveness requires further study.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAmbulatory CareHumansNurse PractitionersPrimary Care NursingPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID26056121
PMCPMC4466759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.