ArticleCureus2025
An Examination of the Opinions of NHS Stakeholders on the Current and Future Role of Physician Associates.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of role conflict and job stress on turnover intention among Korean physician assistant nurses: A cross-sectional study.International journal of nursing sciences · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Healthcare systems are experiencing problems recruiting and retaining workers and consequently are developing the role of intermediate-level practitioners including Physician Associates (PAs). However, the integration of PAs into the NHS is facing many challenges and there are no studies looking into the causes behind this. This study examines the opinions of NHS stakeholders on the current and future roles of PAs and explores strategies to improve integration. Methods This cross-sectional study at a single NHS Trust gathered views and experiences regarding PAs through a survey of consultants, resident doctors (RDs), PAs, and patients. Tailored surveys were generated by doctors and a PA, validated and pilot tested then electronically distributed. Data were analysed using Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) and SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and qualitative analysis for open-ended questions. Results Half of the consultants recognised the positive contributions of PAs. However, 68.6% (n=35) felt that PA roles were unclear. The PA role was explained to 11% (n=3) of RDs, 14% (n=4) understood their role, and 75% (n=21) expressed concern that PAs might hinder their training. Amongst the PAs, 75% (n=12) felt the healthcare climate adversely affected their work and 56.3% (n=9) were considering a career change. Only 14% (n=7) of patients fully understood the PA role, but 86% (n=43) were comfortable being seen by one. Conclusion This study highlights the contributions of PAs and recognition by stakeholders. Integration, however, remains challenging with concerns regarding RDs' training, and PA career progression and satisfaction. The hurdles are compounded by gaps in understanding the role. Going forwards, clear definition of and education regarding the role of PAs is essential and is the joint responsibility of PAs, managers, consultants, the General Medical Council, and Royal Colleges.
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.