Cited by 62Nursing Roles and PracticesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Economic evaluation of nurse practitioners versus GPs in treating common conditions

Open access
Dierick-van Daele, Angelique TM, Steuten, Lotte MG, Metsemakers, Job FM, Derckx, Emmy WCC, Spreeuwenberg, Cor, Vrijhoef, Hubertus JM·2010·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As studies evaluating substitution of care have revealed only limited evidence on cost-effectiveness, a trial was conducted to evaluate nurse practitioners as a first point of contact in Dutch general practices. AIM: To estimate costs of GP versus nurse practitioner consultations from practice and societal perspectives. DESIGN OF STUDY: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial between May and October 2006, wherein 12 nurse practitioners and 50 GPs working in 15 general practices (study practices) participated. Consultations by study practices were also compared with an external reference group, with 17 GPs working in five general practices without the involvement of nurse practitioners. METHOD: Direct costs within the healthcare sector included resource use, follow-up consultations, length of consultations, and salary costs. Costs outside the healthcare sector were productivity losses. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Direct costs were lower for nurse practitioner consultations than for GP consultations at study practices. This was also the case for direct costs plus costs from a societal perspective for patients aged <65 years. Direct costs of consultations at study practices were lower than those of reference practices, while practices did not differ for direct costs plus costs from a societal perspective for patients aged <65 years. Cost differences are mainly caused by the differences in salary. CONCLUSION: By involving nurse practitioners, substantial economic 'savings' could be used for redesigning primary care, to optimise the best skill mix, and to cover the full range of primary care activities.

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 · 10.3399/bjgp10x482077

Cites

24 of 24 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dierick-van Daele, A. T., Steuten, L. M., Metsemakers, J. F., Derckx, E. W., Spreeuwenberg, C., & Vrijhoef, H. J.
Affiliations
Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2010-01-01
Volume
60
Issue
570
Pages
e28-e35
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2008948279
Cited by
62
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport
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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
nurse practitioners, general practitioners, cost-effectiveness, primary care, consultation costs, social costs, productivity loss, personnel costs, skill mix, first point of contact, common conditions, elderly patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nurse Practitioners, Drug Prescriptions, Referral and Consultation, Salaries and Fringe Benefits

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