Article Text

Effectiveness of community-based health services by nurse practitioners: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Mikiko Kanda1,
  2. Erika Ota2,
  3. Hiromi Fukuda3,
  4. Shinji Miyauchi3,
  5. Stuart Gilmour1,
  6. Yuko Kono3,
  7. Erika Nakagama3,
  8. Sachiyo Murashima3,4,
  9. Kenji Shibuya1
    1. 1Department of Global Health Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
    2. 2Division of Clinical Practice Policy, Department of Health Policy, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan
    3. 3Department of Nursing, Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Oita, Japan
    4. 4The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
    1. Correspondence to Mikiko Kanda; mkanda{at}m.u-tokyo.ac.jp

    Abstract

    Introduction To realise universal health coverage in an ageing society, adequate provision of appropriately trained human resources is essential. The nurse practitioner (NP) is an autonomous and independent, advanced practice nurse capable of providing treatment and care that can be substituted for some aspects of a medical doctor's (MD's) role, especially in a community setting. Previous systematic reviews found higher levels of patient satisfaction with services provided by NPs than those provided by MDs. As non-communicable diseases become a major health burden requiring long-term healthcare in community settings, this systematic review aims to assess the equivalence of NP services to standard care provided by MDs, and to determine whether their practice is an effective alternative to that of MDs in community settings.

    Methods and analysis Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs will be searched in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the British Nursing Index. We will assess patient and health system utilisation outcomes of interventions comparing treatment and care provided by NPs in community settings with that provided by MDs. Two authors will independently screen studies for inclusion, consulting with a third author where necessary to resolve discrepancies. The risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool, and quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis of included studies will be conducted using fixed-effect or random-effects models depending on the degree of between-study heterogeneity. Results will be presented using risk ratios with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean differences with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.

    Ethics and dissemination This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol does not require ethical approval. We will disseminate the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis via publications in peer-reviewed journals.

    Trial registration number PROSPEROCRD42014009627.

    • MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING

    This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.