A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Nurse Practitioners and Clinical Nurse Specialists: What Is the Quality of the Evidence?

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorDonald, Faith
dc.contributor.authorKilpatrick, Kelley
dc.contributor.authorReid, Kim
dc.contributor.authorCarter, Nancy
dc.contributor.authorMartin-Misener, Ruth
dc.contributor.authorBryant-Lukosius, Denise
dc.contributor.authorHarbman, Patricia
dc.contributor.authorKaasalainen, Sharon
dc.contributor.authorMarshall, Deborah A.
dc.contributor.authorCharbonneau-Smith, Renee
dc.contributor.authorDonald, Erin E.
dc.contributor.authorLloyd, Monique
dc.contributor.authorWickson-Griffiths, Abigail
dc.contributor.authorYost, Jennifer
dc.contributor.authorBaxter, Pamela
dc.contributor.authorSangster-Gormley, Esther
dc.contributor.authorHubley, Pamela
dc.contributor.authorLaflamme, Célyne
dc.contributor.authorCampbell–Yeo, Marsha
dc.contributor.authorPrice, Sheri
dc.contributor.authorBoyko, Jennifer
dc.contributor.authorDiCenso, Alba
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-27T11:36:31Z
dc.date.available2018-09-27T11:36:31Z
dc.date.issued2014-09-01
dc.date.updated2018-09-27T11:36:31Z
dc.description.abstractBackground. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles. Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization). Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012. Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (), NP-transition (), NP-inpatient (), CNS-outpatient (), CNS-transition (), and CNS-inpatient (). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity. Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.
dc.description.versionPeer Reviewed
dc.identifier.citationFaith Donald, Kelley Kilpatrick, Kim Reid, et al., “A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Nurse Practitioners and Clinical Nurse Specialists: What Is the Quality of the Evidence?,” Nursing Research and Practice, vol. 2014, Article ID 896587, 28 pages, 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/896587
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1155/2014/896587
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1880/108224
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/45045
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderCopyright © 2014 Faith Donald et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
dc.titleA Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Nurse Practitioners and Clinical Nurse Specialists: What Is the Quality of the Evidence?
dc.typeJournal Article
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
NRP.2014.896587.pdf
Size:
946.89 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
0 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Open Access Publications