Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28127773›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2017

Does the Regulatory Environment Affect Nurse Practitioners' Patterns of Practice or Quality of Care in Health Centers?

Ellen T Kurtzman, Burt S Barnow, Jean E Johnson, Samuel J Simmens, Donna Lind Infeld, Fitzhugh Mullan

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Job preference of nurse practitioners: A simulation approach.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ellen T KurtzmanSchool of Nursing, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Burt S BarnowTrachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Jean E JohnsonSchool of Nursing, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Samuel J SimmensMilken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Donna Lind InfeldTrachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Fitzhugh MullanMilken Institute School of Public Health and School ofMedicine & Health Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
George Washington University · USPublic Policy Institute of California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the impact of state-granted nurse practitioner (NP) independence on patient-level quality, service utilization, and referrals. DATA SOURCES/STUDY

settingThe National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey's community health center (HC) subsample (2006-2011). Primary analyses included approximately 6,500 patient visits to 350 NPs in 220 HCs. STUDY

designPropensity score matching and multivariate regression analysis were used to estimate the impact of state-granted NP independence on each outcome, separately. Estimates were adjusted for sampling weights and NAMCS's complex design. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsEvery "NP-patient visit unit" was isolated using practitioner and patient visit codes and, using geographic identifiers, assigned to its state-year and that state-year's level of NP independence based on scope of practice policies. Nine outcomes were specified using ICD-9 codes, standardized drug classification codes, and NAMCS survey items. PRINCIPAL

findingsAfter matching, no statistically significant differences in quality were detected by states' independence status, although NP visits in states with prescriptive independence received more educational services (aIRR 1.66; 95 percent CI 1.09-2.53; p = .02) and medications (aIRR 1.26; 95 percent CI 1.04-1.53; p = .02), and NP visits in states with practice independence had a higher odds of receiving physician referrals (AOR 1.88; 95 percent CI 1.10-3.22; p = .02) than those in restricted states.

conclusionsFindings do not support a quality-scope of practice relationship.

Indexed as

AdultCommunity Health CentersFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedNurse PractitionersPractice Patterns, Nurses'Primary Health CareQuality of Health CareUnited Statescommunity health centerNurse practitionerquality of carescope of practicestate policy

Identifiers

PMID28127773
PMCPMC5269551
OpenAlexW2581486414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.