The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quality of primary care by advanced practice nurses: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the safety and effectiveness of primary care provided by advanced practice nurses (APNs) and evaluate the potential of their deployment to help alleviate primary care shortages. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Medline and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs and their follow-up reports that compared outcomes of care provided to adults by APNs and physicians in equivalent primary care provider roles were selected for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Ten articles (seven RCTs, plus two economic evaluations and one 2-year follow-up study of included RCTs) met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted regarding study design, setting and outcomes across four common categories. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The seven RCTs include data for 10 911 patients who presented for ongoing primary care (four RCTs) or same-day consultations for acute conditions (three RCTs) in the primary care setting. Study follow-up ranged from 1 day to 2 years. APN groups demonstrated equal or better outcomes than physician groups for physiologic measures, patient satisfaction and cost. APNs generally had longer consultations compared with physicians; however, two studies reported that APN patients required fewer consultations over time. CONCLUSION: There were few differences in primary care provided by APNs and physicians; for some measures APN care was superior. While studies are needed to assess longer term outcomes, these data suggest that the APN workforce is well-positioned to provide safe and effective primary care.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch8 · Cited by 3,396
Primary Care Outcomes in Patients Treated by Nurse Practitioners or Physicians: A Randomized Trial
Mundinger, M. O., Kane, R. L., Lenz, E. R., Totten, A. M., Tsai, W.-Y., Cleary, P. D., Friedewald, W. T., Siu, A. L., & Shelanski, M. L. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.1.59 · Cited by 955
Venning, P. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7241.1048 · Cited by 494
Kinnersley, P. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7241.1043 · Cited by 428
Examining the Value and Quality of Health Economic Analyses: Implications of Utilizing the QHES
Ofman, J. J., Sullivan, S. D., Neumann, P. J., Chiou, C.-F., Henning, J. M., Wade, S. W., & Hay, J. W. (2003) · Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy · doi:10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.1.53 · Cited by 366
Substitution of physicians by nurses in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Martínez-González, N. A., Djalali, S., Tandjung, R., Huber-Geismann, F., Markun, S., Wensing, M., & Rosemann, T. (2014) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-214 · Cited by 310
Primary Care Outcomes in Patients treated by Nurse Practitioners or Physicians: Two-Year Follow-Up
Lenz, E. R., Mundinger, M. O., Kane, R. L., Hopkins, S. C., & Lin, S. X. (2004) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/1077558704266821 · Cited by 278
Nurse practitioners substituting for general practitioners: randomized controlled trial
Dierick‐van Daele, A. T. M., Metsemakers, J. F. M., Derckx, E. W. C. C., Spreeuwenberg, C., & Vrijhoef, H. J. M. (2009) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04888.x · Cited by 170 · cited 10×
“Four studies were unclear regarding the methods used for random sequence generation [28, 30–32], two showed low risk [29, 33] and one demonstrated high risk of inadequate random sequence generation [27].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEconomic evaluation of nurse practitioners versus GPs in treating common conditions
Dierick-van Daele, A. T., Steuten, L. M., Metsemakers, J. F., Derckx, E. W., Spreeuwenberg, C., & Vrijhoef, H. J. (2010) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp10x482077 · Cited by 62 · cited 5×
“Economic evaluations Two economic evaluations [35, 36] were conducted alongside the RCTs [28, 29] with scores of 51 (9 criteria met) [36] and 86 (13 criteria met) [35].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cited by
Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care
Laurant, M., van der Biezen, M., Wijers, N., Watananirun, K., Kontopantelis, E., & van Vught, A. J. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001271.pub3 · Cited by 614
Woo, B. F. Y., Lee, J. X. Y., & Tam, W. W. S. (2017) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/s12960-017-0237-9 · Cited by 437
McMenamin, A., Turi, E., Schlak, A., & Poghosyan, L. (2023) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/10775587231186720 · Cited by 88
Effects of task-shifting from primary care physicians to nurses: an overview of systematic reviews
Paier-Abuzahra, M., Posch, N., Jeitler, K., Semlitsch, T., Radl-Karimi, C., Spary-Kainz, U., Horvath, K., & Siebenhofer, A. (2024) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/s12960-024-00956-3 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Swan, M., Ferguson, S., Chang, A., Larson, E., & Smaldone, A.
- Venue
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-08-03
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 396-404
- ISSN
- 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3677
- OpenAlex
- W2257818341
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 3.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quality of primary care by advanced practice nurses: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/intqhc/mzv054
- The paper
- Swan, M., Ferguson, S., Chang, A., Larson, E., & Smaldone, A. (2015). Quality of primary care by advanced practice nurses: a systematic review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzv054
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
