MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2238427603 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007167

Cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners in primary and specialised ambulatory care: systematic review

2015· review· en· W2238427603 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruth Martin‐Misener, Patricia Harbman, Faith Donald, Kimberly J. Reid, Kelley Kilpatrick, Nancy Carter, Denise Bryant‐Lukosius, Sharon Kaasalainen, Deborah A. Marshall, Renée Charbonneau-Smith, Alba DiCenso

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontMcMaster UniversityToronto Metropolitan UniversityDalhousie University
FundersHealth CanadaOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatory careNursingFamily medicineHealth careAmbulatoryMEDLINEDistrict nurse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of nurse practitioners delivering primary and specialised ambulatory care. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials reported since 1980. DATA SOURCES: 10 electronic bibliographic databases, handsearches, contact with authors, bibliographies and websites. INCLUDED STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials that evaluated nurse practitioners in alternative and complementary ambulatory care roles and reported health system outcomes. RESULTS: 11 trials were included. In four trials of alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but seven patient outcomes favouring nurse practitioner care and in all but four health system outcomes, one favouring nurse practitioner care and three favouring physician care. In a meta-analysis of two studies (2689 patients) with minimal heterogeneity and high-quality evidence, nurse practitioner care resulted in lower mean health services costs per consultation (mean difference: -€6.41; 95% CI -€9.28 to -€3.55; p<0.0001) (2006 euros). In two trials of alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles, nurse practitioners were equivalent to physicians in all but three patient outcomes and one health system outcome favouring nurse practitioner care. In five trials of complementary provider specialised ambulatory care roles, 16 patient/provider outcomes favouring nurse practitioner plus usual care, and 16 were equivalent. Two health system outcomes favoured nurse practitioner plus usual care, four favoured usual care and 14 were equivalent. Four studies of complementary specialised ambulatory care compared costs, but only one assessed costs and outcomes jointly. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse practitioners in alternative provider ambulatory primary care roles have equivalent or better patient outcomes than comparators and are potentially cost-saving. Evidence for their cost-effectiveness in alternative provider specialised ambulatory care roles is promising, but limited by the few studies. While some evidence indicates nurse practitioners in complementary specialised ambulatory care roles improve patient outcomes, their cost-effectiveness requires further study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.011
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.307
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations252
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207