Cited by 43Nursing Roles and PracticesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesHealthcare Quality and Management

An examination of primary health care nursing service evaluation using the Donabedian model: A systematic review

Open access
McCullough, Kylie, Andrew, Lesley, Genoni, Angela, Dunham, Melissa, Whitehead, Lisa, Porock, Davina·2023·Research in Nursing & Health

Abstract

Nurses are key to the delivery of global primary health care services. However, there appears to be a lack of evaluation of primary health care nursing delivery models in the published literature. This evaluation is vital to the improvement of patient experiences, national and global health outcomes, and the justification of future investment in primary health care nursing services. The purpose of this review was to explore and analyze the literature that reports on the evaluation of primary health care nursing services, to ascertain the nature and utility of these evaluation methods, and identify opportunities for future research in this area. A systematic review of the published literature was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, using the databases CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute, MEDLINE, and Proquest. Thirty‐two articles published between 2010 and 2022 were selected. Results were organized using the Donabedian model. A paucity of research into the evaluation of nurse‐led primary health care services was noted. Where evident, evaluation of primary health care nursing services tended to reflect the medical model. Medical outcomes measures dominated evaluation criteria including diagnosis rates, prescription costs, and disease outcomes. Primary health care principles such as service accessibility, cultural appropriateness, and availability were rarely used. The perspectives and experiences of nurses were not sought in service evaluation, including most of the nurse‐led services. Development of an evidence‐base of nursing primary health care services that are informed by the nursing experience and apply a framework of universal primary health care principles across the structure, process, and outcomes aspects of the service is recommended.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/nur.22291

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many studies with strong research designs have shown nursing-intensive primary care models to be safe and effective.

    “Many studies with strong research designs have shown nursing-intensive primary care models to be safe and effective.8,11,18-26”

    From Evaluating the cost of NP-led vs. GP-led primary care in British Columbia (2024) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Results (Study design and rigor; page unavailable) rate the included studies at three stars or higher, supporting the research-quality part of the claim. But the Abstract and Discussion (A need for nurse-led service model evaluation; pages unavailable) emphasize limited evaluation of nurse-led services and do not conclude that nursing-intensive primary care models have been shown to be safe and effective. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCullough, K., Andrew, L., Genoni, A., Dunham, M., Whitehead, L., & Porock, D.
Affiliations
Edith Cowan University (AU)
Corresponding author
Andrew, Lesley
Venue
Research in Nursing & Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-12-25
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
159-176
ISSN
  • 0160-6891 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-240X
OpenAlex
W4312140500
Cited by
43
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research in Nursing & Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Edith Cowan University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
primary care nursing, service evaluation, Donabedian model, nurse-led services, evaluation criteria, biomedical model, access to services, cultural appropriateness, nursing perspective, health outcomes
MeSH terms
Humans, Primary Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review