Cited by 24Nursing Roles and PracticesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

General medical services by non-medical health professionals: a systematic quantitative review of economic evaluations in primary care

Open access
Anthony, Bethany F, Surgey, Alun, Hiscock, Julia, Williams, Nefyn H, Charles, Joanna M·2019·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

Background: Previous systematic reviews have found that nurses and pharmacists can provide equivalent, or higher, quality of care for some tasks performed by GPs in primary care. There is a lack of economic evidence for this substitution. Aim: To explore the costs and outcomes of role substitution between GPs and nurses, pharmacists, and allied health professionals in primary care. Design and setting: A systematic review of economic evaluations exploring role substitution of allied health professionals in primary care was conducted. Role substitution was defined as ‘the substitution of work that was previously completed by a GP in the past and is now completed by a nurse or allied health professional’. Method: The following databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The review followed guidance from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: Six economic evaluations were identified. There was some limited evidence that nurse-led care for common minor health problems was cost-effective compared with GP care, and that nurse-led interventions for chronic fatigue syndrome and pharmacy-led services for the medicines management of coronary heart disease and chronic pain were not. In South Korea, community health practitioners delivered primary care services for half the cost of physicians. The review did not identify studies for other allied health professionals such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Conclusion: There is limited economic evidence for role substitution in primary care; more economic evaluations are needed.

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/bjgp19x702425

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • The literature generally reports similar or marginally lower costs for nurse-led services.

    “This literature generally reports similar27,34-37 or marginally lower29,38-41 costs for nurse-led services.”

    From Evaluating the cost of NP-led vs. GP-led primary care in British Columbia (2024) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Discussion Summary (page not provided) reports lower costs for nurse-led care of minor conditions, supporting that part of the claim. But it also reports higher costs for nurse-led heart-disease prevention and chronic-fatigue interventions, so this review does not support describing nurse-led services as generally similar or marginally cheaper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hayhoe B, Majeed A, Hamlyn M, Sinha M. Primary care workforce crisis: how many more GPs do we need? Presented at RCGP Annual Conference, Harrogate, 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anthony, B. F., Surgey, A., Hiscock, J., Williams, N. H., & Charles, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Bangor University (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2019-04-23
Volume
69
Issue
682
Pages
e304-e313
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2942368822
Cited by
24
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Health and Care Research Wales (HS-16-31)
  • Bangor University
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
role substitution, non-medical health professionals, nurse-led care, pharmacist-led services, allied health professionals, general practitioners, primary care, cost-effectiveness, chronic fatigue syndrome, coronary artery disease, chronic pain, community health practitioners, South Korea
MeSH terms
Allied Health Personnel, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Nurse Practitioners, Pharmacists, Primary Health Care, Professional Role, General Practitioners

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