Effectiveness of community-based health services by nurse practitioners: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Issue 6 (23rd June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kanda, Mikiko; Ota, Erika; Fukuda, Hiromi; Miyauchi, Shinji; Gilmour, Stuart; Kono, Yuko; Nakagama, Erika; Murashima, Sachiyo; Shibuya, Kenji
• Other Names: Tonai Miho author non-byline.; Ono Miki author non-byline.; Makino Yusuke author non-byline.
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 5:Issue 6(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-06-23
• Subjects: MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006670
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: To realise universal health coverage in an ageing society, adequate provision of appropriately trained human resources is essential. The nurse practitioner (NP) is an autonomous and independent, advanced practice nurse capable of providing treatment and care that can be substituted for some aspects of a medical doctor's (MD's) role, especially in a community setting. Previous systematic reviews found higher levels of patient satisfaction with services provided by NPs than those provided by MDs. As non-communicable diseases become a major health burden requiring long-term healthcare in community settings, this systematic review aims to assess the equivalence of NP services to standard care provided by MDs, and to determine whether their practice is an effective alternative to that of MDs in community settings. Methods and analysis: Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs will be searched in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the British Nursing Index. We will assess patient and health system utilisation outcomes of interventions comparing treatment and care provided by NPs in community settings with that provided by MDs. Two authors will independently screen studies for inclusion, consulting with a third author where necessary to resolve discrepancies. The risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool, and quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis of included studies will be conducted using fixed-effect or random-effects models depending on the degree of between-study heterogeneity. Results will be presented using risk ratios with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean differences with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Ethics and dissemination: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol does not require ethical approval. We will disseminate the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis via publications in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number: PROSPEROCRD42014009627.