Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39614300›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2024

Public perception of the physician associate profession in the UK: a systematic review.

Rhys Swainston, Yingxi Zhao, Eli Harriss, Attakrit Leckcivilize, Mike English, Shobhana Nagraj

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Rhys SwainstonNDM Centre for Global Health Research Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, S Parks Rd, Oxford, OX1 3SY, UK. rhys.swainston@ndm.ox.ac.uk.
Yingxi ZhaoNDM Centre for Global Health Research Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, S Parks Rd, Oxford, OX1 3SY, UK.
Eli HarrissBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Attakrit LeckcivilizeNDM Centre for Global Health Research Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, S Parks Rd, Oxford, OX1 3SY, UK.
Mike EnglishNDM Centre for Global Health Research Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, S Parks Rd, Oxford, OX1 3SY, UK.
Shobhana NagrajNDM Centre for Global Health Research Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, S Parks Rd, Oxford, OX1 3SY, UK.

Funding

NIHR Health and Social Care Delivery Research NIHR153324Wellcome Trust 207522/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe physician associate (PA) role within the NHS is currently under scrutiny due to recent legislative changes and concerns about their scope of practice within primary and secondary healthcare. There is currently limited knowledge of public understanding of PAs and their levels of satisfaction with PAs. This review synthesises the evidence relating to patients' and potential patients' understanding of and satisfaction with the PA profession in the UK.

methodsWe systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCOhost CINAHL, Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Scopus databases for empirical studies of patient understanding of PAs or satisfaction with PAs. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies looking at PAs in primary and/or secondary care. Quality appraisal was conducted using the CASP Critical Appraisal checklists. A reflexive thematic analysis was used to synthesise data and the GRADE-CERqual method was used to assess the certainty of the themes.

resultsA total of 18 papers involving 15 studies were included in the review. Findings revealed that patients had limited understanding of the PA role with many mistaking PAs for doctors and other healthcare professionals. Patients were confused by the lack of PA prescribing rights. There was receptivity to learn more about the PA role. The evidence suggests that patients had a largely positive view of PAs after an encounter, despite their lack of knowledge about the role. Many patients expressed a willingness to be seen by PAs in future and viewed them as a useful part of the wider healthcare system.

conclusionIn the UK, there is limited information about, and understanding of, the PA role. Nevertheless, patients were largely satisfied with the quality of care they receive from PAs during consultations. Our findings suggest a need for comprehensive public information regarding the roles and scope of practice of PA's, and to provide the public and patients with clear expectations of their relative strengths and limitations. Further research might determine if these findings are specific to PAs, or reflect wider issues affecting public perception of other cadres of healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

Physician AssistantsPublic OpinionHumansPatient SatisfactionState MedicineUnited KingdomNHSPatient satisfactionPhysician associatesPublic perceptionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39614300
PMCPMC11606115

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.