Cited by 88Nursing Roles and PracticesChronic Disease Management StrategiesPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

A Systematic Review of Outcomes Related to Nurse Practitioner-Delivered Primary Care for Multiple Chronic Conditions

Open access
McMenamin, Amy, Turi, Eleanor, Schlak, Amelia, Poghosyan, Lusine·2023·Medical Care Research and Review

Abstract

Multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) are more common and costly than any individual health condition in the United States. The growing workforce of nurse practitioners (NPs) plays an active role in providing primary care to this patient population. This study identifies the effect of NP primary care models, compared with models without NP involvement, on cost, quality, and service utilization by patients with MCCs. We conducted a literature search of six databases and performed critical appraisal. Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria (years: 2003–2021). Overall, most studies showed reduced or similar costs, equivalent or better quality, and similar or lower rates of emergency department use and hospitalization associated with NP primary care models for patients with MCCs, compared with models without NP involvement. No studies found them associated with worse outcomes. Thus, NP primary care models, compared with models without NP involvement, have similar or positive impacts on MCC patient outcomes.

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 · 10.1177/10775587231186720

Cites

55 of 55 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 [23]

    The Outcomes and Discussion sections report similar or improved outcomes for nurse practitioner primary care in patients with multiple chronic conditions, supporting the general point about effectiveness. But the Critical Appraisal section rates all three randomized trials as having a high risk of bias and most quasi-experimental studies as having moderate or high risk, so the paper does not support describing the evidence as many studies with strong research designs. Its findings are also specific to nurse practitioner care for patients with multiple chronic conditions, rather than nursing-intensive primary care generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The economic impact of nurse-led primary care remains less documented than its clinical quality.

    “Nevertheless, the economic impact of nurse-led primary care remains less documented than its clinical quality.9,20,23,26,42-44”

    From Evaluating the cost of NP-led vs. GP-led primary care in British Columbia (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Cost of Care section reports that only four of the 15 included studies measured costs, while the Discussion identifies five studies addressing guideline-concordant care, one aspect of clinical quality. This supports the comparison within the review’s scope, but the review concerns nurse practitioner primary care for US patients with multiple chronic conditions, not nurse-led primary care generally. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Measurable clinical outcomes are systematically found to be equivalent to those produced by medical models, though patient satisfaction tends to be higher for nurse-provided services.

    “Measurable clinical outcomes are systematically found to be equivalent11,18,19,23,27-32 to those produced by medical models, though patient satisfaction tends to be higher for nurse-provided services.11,19,21,26,27,29,30,33,34”

    From Evaluating the cost of NP-led vs. GP-led primary care in British Columbia (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Outcomes section (page unavailable) reports no difference for some clinical measures, but also modest improvements in diabetes measures and blood pressure in some studies; it does not establish that measurable outcomes are systematically equivalent. The Study Characteristics section (page unavailable) reports increased patient satisfaction after one NP-involved program, without showing that satisfaction was higher than under physician-provided care. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Auerbach, D. (2012). Will the NP workforce grow in the future? New forecasts and implications for healthcare delivery. Medical Care, 50(7), 606-610. https://doi.org/10.1097/ MLR.0b013e318249d6e7 · DOI
  2. Cato, K. D., Sun, C., Carter, E. J., Liu, J., Rivera, R., & Larson, E. (2019). Linking to improve nursing care and knowledge: Evaluation of an initiative to provide research support to clini- cal nurses. Journal of Nursing Administration, 49(1), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1097/nna.0000000000000707 · DOI
  3. Frandsen, B., Joynt, K., Rebitzer, J., & Jha, A. (2015). Care frag- mentation, quality, and costs among chronically ill patients. American Journal of Managed Care, 21(5), 355-362.
  4. Norful, A. A., Swords, K., Marichal, M., Cho, H., & Poghosyan, L. (2019). Nurse practitioner-physician comanagement of primary care patients: The promise of a new deliv- ery care model to improve quality of care. Health Care Management Review, 44(3), 235-245. https://doi.org/10.1097/ hmr.0000000000000161 · DOI
  5. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo- Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . .Mohar, D. (2021b). An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 178-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2021.03.001 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Steiner, C. A., & Friedman, B. (2013). Hospital utilization, costs, and mortality for adults with multiple chronic conditions, nation- wide inpatient sample, 2009. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10, Article 120292. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd10.120292 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Tufanaru, C., Munn, Z., Aromataris, E., Munn, Z., Campbell, J. D., & Hopp, L. (2020). JBI manual for evidence synthesis (E. Aromataris, & Z. Munn, Eds.). Joana Briggs Institute. https:// synthesismanual.jbi.global U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Multiple chronic conditions-A strategic framework: Optimum health and quality of life for individuals with multiple chronic con- ditions. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ash/initiatives/mcc/ mcc_framework.pdf
  8. Ward, B., & Schiller, J. (2010). Prevalence of multiple chronic con- ditions among U.S. adults: Estimates from the national health interview survey. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10, Article 120203. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd10.120203 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McMenamin, A., Turi, E., Schlak, A., & Poghosyan, L.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Corresponding author
McMenamin, Amy
Venue
Medical Care Research and Review
Published
2023-07-12
Volume
80
Issue
6
Pages
563-581
ISSN
  • 1077-5587 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6801
OpenAlex
W4384120438
Cited by
88
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 3
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Care Research and Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R36 HS029435)
  • National Institute for Nursing Research (T32 NR014205)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (R01 MD011514)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
nurse practitioners, multimorbidity, primary care models, health care costs, quality of care, emergency department utilization, hospitalization, patient outcomes
MeSH terms
Multiple Chronic Conditions, Emergency Service, Hospital, Hospitalization, Humans, Nurse Practitioners, Primary Health Care, United States

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