ArticleBMC health services research2020
A comparative case study of prescribing and non-prescribing physiotherapists and podiatrists.
Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient satisfaction with advanced practice physiotherapy internationally: A systematic mixed studies review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Antibiotic prescribing by non-medical healthcare professionals in primary care: a systematic review of effects on antibiotic use, patient experience, interprofessional relationships and job satisfaction.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Exploring the Learning Experiences of Non-Medical Prescribing Among Podiatry Students on Clinical Placement.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2026Article
- A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of prescribing by dietitians and therapeutic radiographers in England.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Contested role boundaries and professional title: Implications of the independent review of podiatric surgery in Australia.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2024Article
- Multiprofessional heart failure self-development framework.Open heart · 2024Review
- Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2023Article
- South African physiotherapists' attitudes to medicine prescription as an extension of practice.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2023Article
- A decade of independent prescribing in the UK: a review of progress.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing numbers of nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals across the world have prescribing rights for medicines: over 90,000 of the eligible United Kingdom workforce are qualified as non-doctor prescribers. In order to inform future developments, it is important to understand the benefits and impact of prescribing by allied health professionals including physiotherapists and podiatrists.
aimto compare outcomes of physiotherapist and podiatrist Independent Prescriber (PP- IP) patients with those of physiotherapist and podiatrist non-prescribers (PP-NPs). Outcome measures included patient satisfaction, ease of access to services, quality of life and cost implications.
designa mixed method comparative case study.
methodsUsing mixed methods of data collection, outcomes were compared between 7 sites where care was provided from a PP-IP (3 podiatrist and 4 physiotherapist IPs) and 7 sites from a PP-NP (3 podiatrist and 4 physiotherapist NPs). Patients were followed up for 2 months (2015-2016).
results489 patients were recruited: n = 243 IP sites, and n = 246 NP sites. Independent prescribing was found to be highly acceptable, and equivalent in terms of quality of life (p > 0.05) and patient satisfaction (p ≤ 0.05) compared to care provided by NPs. PP-IP care delivery was found to be more resource intensive than PP-NP, with longer consultation duration for IPs (around 6.5 mins), and a higher proportion of physiotherapy patients discussed with medical colleagues (around 9.5 min).
conclusionThis study provides new knowledge that PP-IPs provide high levels of care. PP-IP care delivery was found to be more resource intensive. Further research is required to explore cost effectiveness. A more focussed exploration within each profession using targeted outcome measures would enable a more robust comparison, inform future developments around the world and help ensure non-doctor prescribing is recognised as an effective way to alleviate shortfalls in the global workforce.
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.