ArticleBJGP open2025
The impact of physician associates in primary care in the UK: a systematic review.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Review
- 'Don't work more than 3 days straight': Working conditions as learning conditions in general practice.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe UK healthcare system has a growing workforce crisis, which is felt especially acutely in primary care. A prospective solution is the use of physician associates (PAs). In recent times, this has generated some controversy. There is a sparsity of synthesised evidence around the use of PAs in the UK, particularly their implementation in primary care.
aimTo look at the impact PAs have on workload, safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness in delivering UK primary care. DESIGN &
settingSystematic review of peer-reviewed literature, including qualitative and quantitative studies of PAs, in UK primary care.
methodCochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched from 2011-2024. Covidence was used for data management. Narrative synthesis was performed based on the four primary aims.
resultsSixteen studies were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria for data extraction and synthesis. Thirteen commented on workload, eight commented on safety, 13 on efficacy, and eight studies discussed cost-effectiveness. Results showed that PAs were considered clinically safe but impacts on workload and efficacy were less clear. Cost-effectiveness assessment was limited by inability to calculate full costs or benefits.
conclusionThis review found that there is limited evidence available in the published literature to demonstrate the impact of PAs in primary care. While there were some positive studies, a clear need for further research was demonstrated. An additional pathway to explore, comparing PAs with the non-GP primary care workforce, was also noted.
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.