ArticleBMJ open2020
Characterising the evidence base for advanced clinical practice in the UK: a scoping review protocol.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing cost awareness in hospitals: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Assessing the factors militating against the effective implementation of electronic health records (EHR) in Nigeria.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Exploring advanced clinical practitioner perspectives on training, role identity and competence: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Research priority setting in UK podiatric surgery.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2023Article
- Mapping the evidence on assessment of fitness to work at heights: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Use of digital technology to give and receive feedback in clinical training: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- The changing role of Advanced Clinical Practitioners working with older people during the COVID- 19 pandemic: A qualitative research study.International journal of nursing studies · 2022Article
- Nationwide evaluation of the advanced clinical practitioner role in England: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Characterising the outcomes, impacts and implementation challenges of advanced clinical practice roles in the UK: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Experiences of out-of-hours task-shifting from GPs: a systematic review of qualitative studies.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Workforce experience of the implementation of an advanced clinical practice framework in England: a mixed methods evaluation.Human resources for health · 2020Article
- Advanced Clinical Practitioners in Primary Care in the UK: A Qualitative Study of Workforce Transformation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Characterising the evidence base for advanced clinical practice in the UK: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.