Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32439696›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Characterising the evidence base for advanced clinical practice in the UK: a scoping review protocol.

Catrin Evans, Brenda Poku, Ruth Pearce, Jeanette Eldridge, Paul Hendrick, Roger Knaggs, John McLuskey, Philippa Tomczak, Ruaridh Thow, Peter Harris and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Research priority setting in UK podiatric surgery.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Advanced Clinical Practitioners in Primary Care in the UK: A Qualitative Study of Workforce Transformation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  13. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Catrin EvansSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK catrin.evans@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5338-2191
Brenda PokuSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Ruth PearceSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Jeanette EldridgeSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Paul HendrickSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Roger KnaggsSchool of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK.
John McLuskeySchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Philippa TomczakSchool of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Ruaridh ThowEmergency Department, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Peter HarrisHealth Education England East Midlands, Nottingham, UK.
Joy ConwayCollege of Health and Life Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK.
Richard CollierHealth Education England, Leeds, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBHealth Education England · GBBrunel University of London · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA global health workforce crisis, coupled with ageing populations, wars and the rise of non-communicable diseases is prompting all countries to consider the optimal skill mix within their health workforce. The development of advanced clinical practice (ACP) roles for existing non-medical cadres is one potential strategy that is being pursued. In the UK, National Health Service (NHS) workforce transformation programmes are actively promoting the development of ACP roles across a wide range of non-medical professions. These efforts are currently hampered by a high level of variation in ACP role development, deployment, nomenclature, definition, governance and educational preparation across the professions and across different settings. This scoping review aims to support a more consistent approach to workforce development in the UK, by identifying and mapping the current evidence base underpinning multiprofessional advanced level practice in the UK from a workforce, clinical, service and patient perspective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review is registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/tzpe5). The review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and involves a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional team, including a public representative. A wide range of electronic databases and grey literature sources will be searched from 2005 to the present. The review will include primary data from any relevant research, audit or evaluation studies. All review steps will involve two or more reviewers. Data extraction, charting and summary will be guided by a template derived from an established framework used internationally to evaluate ACP (the Participatory Evidence-Informed Patient-Centred Process-Plus framework). DISSEMINATION: The review will produce important new information on existing activity, outcomes, implementation challenges and key areas for future research around ACP in the UK, which, in the context of global workforce transformations, will be of international, as well as local, significance. The findings will be disseminated through professional and NHS bodies, employer organisations, conferences and research papers.

Indexed as

State MedicineHumansScoping Reviews as TopicUnited KingdomWorkforcehuman resource managementmedical education & trainingorganisation of health services

Identifiers

PMID32439696
PMCPMC7247387
OpenAlexW3015071716

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.