Cited by 98Nursing Roles and PracticesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeNursing education and management

The effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of clinical nurse specialists in outpatient roles: a systematic review

Kilpatrick, Kelley, Kaasalainen, Sharon, Donald, Faith, Reid, Kim, Carter, Nancy, Bryant‐Lukosius, Denise, Martin‐Misener, Ruth, Harbman, Patricia +3 more·2014·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives: Increasing numbers of clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) are working in outpatient settings. The objective of this paper is to describe a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the cost‐effectiveness of CNSs delivering outpatient care in alternative or complementary provider roles. Methods: We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and seven other electronic databases, 1980 to J uly 2012 and hand‐searched bibliographies and key journals. RCTs that evaluated formally trained CNSs and health system outcomes were included. Study quality was assessed using the C ochrane risk of bias tool and the Q uality of H ealth E conomic S tudies instrument. We used the G rading of R ecommendations A ssessment, D evelopment and E valuation to assess quality of evidence for individual outcomes. Results: Eleven RCTs, four evaluating alternative provider (n = 683 participants) and seven evaluating complementary provider roles (n = 1464 participants), were identified. Results of the alternative provider RCTs (low‐to‐moderate quality evidence) were fairly consistent across study populations with similar patient outcomes to usual care, some evidence of reduced resource use and costs, and two economic analyses (one fair and one high quality) favouring CNS care. Results of the complementary provider RCTs (low‐to‐moderate quality evidence) were also fairly consistent across study populations with similar or improved patient outcomes and mostly similar health system outcomes when compared with usual care; however, the economic analyses were weak. Conclusions: Low‐to‐moderate quality evidence supports the effectiveness and two fair‐to‐high quality economic analyses support the cost‐effectiveness of outpatient alternative provider CNSs. Low‐to‐moderate quality evidence supports the effectiveness of outpatient complementary provider CNSs; however, robust economic evaluations are needed to address cost‐effectiveness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jep.12219

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kilpatrick, K., Kaasalainen, S., Donald, F., Reid, K., Carter, N., Bryant‐Lukosius, D., Martin‐Misener, R., Harbman, P., Marshall, D. A., Charbonneau‐Smith, R., & DiCenso, A.
Affiliations
  • Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Toronto Metropolitan University (CA)
  • KJ Research Rosemere Quebec Canada
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Canadian Centre for Advanced Practice Nursing Research Hamilton Ontario Canada
Corresponding author
Kilpatrick, Kelley
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-07-05
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
1106-1123
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
OpenAlex
W2097028250
Cited by
98
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement
  • Health Canada
  • Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (06514)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
Keywords
clinical nurse specialists, outpatient care, cost-effectiveness, health system outcomes, resource utilization (health care), patient outcomes, economic evaluation
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care, Canada, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Male, Nurse Clinicians, Outpatients, Quality of Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Health Care Costs, Evidence-Based Medicine, Nurse's Role

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