Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35659215›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2022

Effectiveness of registered nurses on patient outcomes in primary care: a systematic review.

Julia Lukewich, Ruth Martin-Misener, Allison A Norful, Marie-Eve Poitras, Denise Bryant-Lukosius, Shabnam Asghari, Emily Gard Marshall, Maria Mathews, Michelle Swab, Dana Ryan and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Julia LukewichFaculty of Nursing, Memorial University, 300 Prince Phillip Drive, St. John's, NL, A1B 3V, Canada. jlukewich@mun.ca.
Ruth Martin-MisenerSchool of Nursing, Dalhousie University, 5869 University Ave. St, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada.
Allison A NorfulSchool of Nursing, Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Marie-Eve PoitrasDépartement de Médecine de Famille Et Médecine d'urgence, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 Boulevard de l'Université, Sherbrooke, QC, J1K 2R1, Canada.
Denise Bryant-LukosiusSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Shabnam AsghariDepartment of Family Medicine, Memorial University, 300 Prince Phillip Drive, St. John's, NL, A1B 3V6, Canada.
Emily Gard MarshallDepartment of Family Medicine Primary Care Research Unit, Dalhousie University, 1465 Brenton Street, Suite 402, Halifax, NS, B3J 3T4, Canada.
Maria MathewsDepartment of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western, 1151 Richmond Street, OntarioLondon, ON, N6A 5C1, Canada.
Michelle SwabHealth Sciences Library, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, 300 Prince Phillip Drive, St. John's, NL, A1B 3V6, Canada.
Dana RyanFaculty of Nursing, Memorial University, 300 Prince Phillip Drive, St. John's, NL, A1B 3V, Canada.
Joan TranmerSchool of Nursing, Queen's University, 92 Barrie Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, registered nurses (RNs) are increasingly working in primary care interdisciplinary teams. Although existing literature provides some information about the contributions of RNs towards outcomes of care, further evidence on RN workforce contributions, specifically towards patient-level outcomes, is needed. This study synthesized evidence regarding the effectiveness of RNs on patient outcomes in primary care.

methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A comprehensive search of databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, Embase) was performed using applicable subject headings and keywords. Additional literature was identified through grey literature searches (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, MedNar, Google Scholar, websites, reference lists of included articles). Quantitative studies measuring the effectiveness of a RN-led intervention (i.e., any care/activity performed by a primary care RN) that reported related outcomes were included. Articles were screened independently by two researchers and assessed for bias using the Integrated Quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken due to the heterogeneity in study designs, RN-led interventions, and outcome measures across included studies.

resultsForty-six patient outcomes were identified across 23 studies. Outcomes were categorized in accordance with the PaRIS Conceptual Framework (patient-reported experience measures, patient-reported outcome measures, health behaviours) and an additional category added by the research team (biomarkers). Primary care RN-led interventions resulted in improvements within each outcome category, specifically with respect to weight loss, pelvic floor muscle strength and endurance, blood pressure and glycemic control, exercise self-efficacy, social activity, improved diet and physical activity levels, and reduced tobacco use. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with RN-led care.

conclusionsThis review provides evidence regarding the effectiveness of RNs on patient outcomes in primary care, specifically with respect to satisfaction, enablement, quality of life, self-efficacy, and improvements in health behaviours. Ongoing evaluation that accounts for primary care RNs' unique scope of practice and emphasizes the patient experience is necessary to optimize the delivery of patient-centered primary care. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION ID: PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. 2018. ID=CRD42 018090767 .

Indexed as

NursesQuality of LifeDelivery of Health CareHumansPrimary Health CareEffectivenessOutcomesPatient measuresPrimary care nursingPrimary healthcareRegistered nurseSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35659215
PMCPMC9166606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.