Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of physician assistants/associates: A systematic review of international evidence

ABSTRACT:

Background

The global utilization of the physician assistant/associate (PA) is growing. Their increasing presence is in response to the rising demands of demographic changes, new developments in healthcare, and physician shortages. While PAs are present on four continents, the evidence of whether their employment contributes to more efficient healthcare has not been assessed in the aggregate. We undertook a systematic review of the literature on PA cost-effectiveness as compared to physicians. Cost-effectiveness was operationalized as quality, accessibility, and the cost of care.

Methods and findings

Literature to June 2021 was searched across five biomedical databases and filtered for eligibility. Publications that met the inclusion criteria were categorized by date, country, design, and results by three researchers independently. All studies were screened with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies—of Interventions (ROBIN-I) tool. The literature search produced 4,855 titles, and after applying criteria, 39 studies met inclusion (34 North America, 4 Europe, 1 Africa). Ten studies had a prospective design, and 29 were retrospective. Four studies were assessed as biased in results reporting. While most studies included a small number of PAs, five studies were national in origin and assessed the employment of a few hundred PAs and their care of thousands of patients. In 34 studies, the PA was employed as a substitute for traditional physician services, and in five studies, the PA was employed in a complementary role. The quality of care delivered by a PA was comparable to a physician’s care in 15 studies, and in 18 studies, the quality of care exceeded that of a physician. In total, 29 studies showed that both labor and resource costs were lower when the PA delivered the care than when the physician delivered the care.

Conclusions

Most of the studies were of good methodological quality, and the results point in the same direction; PAs delivered the same or better care outcomes as physicians with the same or less cost of care. Sometimes this efficiency was due to their reduced labor cost and sometimes because they were more effective as producers of care and activity.

SUBMITTER: van den Brink G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8559935 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo appraise and synthesise research on the impact of physician assistants/associates (PA) in secondary care, specifically acute internal medicine, care of the elderly, emergency medicine, trauma and orthopaedics, and mental health.DesignSystematic review.SettingElectronic databases (Medline, Embase, ASSIA, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, EconLit and Cochrane), reference lists and related articles.Included articlesPeer-reviewed articles of any study design, published in English, 1995-2017.InterventionsBlinded parallel processes were used to screen abstracts and full text, data extractions and quality assessments against published guidelines. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.Outcome measuresImpact on: patients' experiences and outcomes, service organisation, working practices, other professional groups and costs.Results5472 references were identified and 161 read in full; 16 were included-emergency medicine (7), trauma and orthopaedics (6), acute internal medicine (2), mental health (1) and care of the elderly (0). All studies were observational, with variable methodological quality. In emergency medicine and in trauma and orthopaedics, when PAs are added to teams, reduced waiting and process times, lower charges, equivalent readmission rate and good acceptability to staff and patients are reported. Analgesia prescribing, operative complications and mortality outcomes were variable. In internal medicine outcomes of care provided by PAs and doctors were equivalent.ConclusionsPAs have been deployed to increase the capacity of a team, enabling gains in waiting time, throughput, continuity and medical cover. When PAs were compared with medical staff, reassuringly there was little or no negative effect on health outcomes or cost. The difficulty of attributing cause and effect in complex systems where work is organised in teams is highlighted. Further rigorous evaluation is required to address the complexity of the PA role, reporting on more than one setting, and including comparison between PAs and roles for which they are substituting.Prospero registration numberCRD42016032895.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care provision is important in the delivery of health care but many countries face primary care workforce challenges. Increasing demand, enlarged workloads, and current and anticipated physician shortages in many countries have led to the introduction of mid-level professionals, such as Physician Assistants (PAs).ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to appraise the evidence of the contribution of PAs within primary care, defined for this study as general practice, relevant to the UK or similar systems.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, SSCI and SCOPUS databases were searched from 1950 to 2010.Eligibility criteriaPAs with a recognised PA qualification, general practice/family medicine included and the findings relevant to it presented separately and an English language journal publication. Two reviewers independently identified relevant publications, assessed quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools and extracted findings. Findings were classified and synthesised narratively as factors related to structure, process or outcome of care.Results2167 publications were identified, of which 49 met our inclusion criteria, with 46 from the United States of America (USA). Structure: approximately half of PAs are reported to work in primary care in the USA with good support and a willingness to employ amongst doctors.Processthe majority of PAs' workload is the management of patients with acute presentations. PAs tend to see younger patients and a different caseload to doctors, and require supervision. Studies of costs provide mixed results.Outcomesacceptability to patients and potential patients is consistently found to be high, and studies of appropriateness report positively. Overall the evidence was appraised as of weak to moderate quality, with little comparative data presented and little change in research questions over time.Limitationsidentification of a broad range of studies examining 'contribution' made meta analysis or meta synthesis untenable.ConclusionsThe research evidence of the contribution of PAs to primary care was mixed and limited. However, the continued growth in employment of PAs in American primary care suggests that this professional group is judged to be of value by increasing numbers of employers. Further specific studies are needed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about the effectiveness of PAs' contribution to the international primary care workforce.

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceutical costs are the fastest-growing health-care expense in most developed countries. Higher drug costs have been shown to negatively impact patient outcomes. Studies suggest that doctors have a poor understanding of pharmaceutical costs, but the data are variable and there is no consistent pattern in awareness. We designed this systematic review to investigate doctors' knowledge of the relative and absolute costs of medications and to determine the factors that influence awareness.Methods and findingsOur search strategy included The Cochrane Library, EconoLit, EMBASE, and MEDLINE as well as reference lists and contact with authors who had published two or more articles on the topic or who had published within 10 y of the commencement of our review. Studies were included if: either doctors, trainees (interns or residents), or medical students were surveyed; there were more than ten survey respondents; cost of pharmaceuticals was estimated; results were expressed quantitatively; there was a clear description of how authors defined "accurate estimates"; and there was a description of how the true cost was determined. Two authors reviewed each article for eligibility and extracted data independently. Cost accuracy outcomes were summarized, but data were not combined in meta-analysis because of extensive heterogeneity. Qualitative data related to physicians and drug costs were also extracted. The final analysis included 24 articles. Cost accuracy was low; 31% of estimates were within 20% or 25% of the true cost, and fewer than 50% were accurate by any definition of cost accuracy. Methodological weaknesses were common, and studies of low methodological quality showed better cost awareness. The most important factor influencing the pattern and accuracy of estimation was the true cost of therapy. High-cost drugs were estimated more accurately than inexpensive ones (74% versus 31%, Chi-square p < 0.001). Doctors consistently overestimated the cost of inexpensive products and underestimated the cost of expensive ones (binomial test, 89/101, p < 0.001). When asked, doctors indicated that they want cost information and feel it would improve their prescribing but that it is not accessible.ConclusionsDoctors' ignorance of costs, combined with their tendency to underestimate the price of expensive drugs and overestimate the price of inexpensive ones, demonstrate a lack of appreciation of the large difference in cost between inexpensive and expensive drugs. This discrepancy in turn could have profound implications for overall drug expenditures. Much more focus is required in the education of physicians about costs and the access to cost information. Future research should focus on the accessibility and reliability of medical cost information and whether the provision of this information is used by doctors and makes a difference to physician prescribing. Additionally, future work should strive for higher methodological standards to avoid the biases we found in the current literature, including attention to the method of assessing accuracy that allows larger absolute estimation ranges for expensive drugs.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To assess cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways following total hip and knee arthroplasties. Secondary objectives were to report on quality of studies and identify research gaps for future work. DESIGN:Systematic review of cost-utility analyses. DATA SOURCES:Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database and EconLit, January 2000 to August 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:English-language peer-reviewed cost-utility analyses of enhanced recovery pathways, or components of one, compared with usual care, in patients having total hip or knee arthroplasties for osteoarthritis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Data extracted by three reviewers with disagreements resolved by a fourth. Study quality assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic decision models tools; for trial-based studies the Cochrane Collaboration's tool to assess risk of bias. No quantitative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS:We identified 17 studies: five trial-based and 12 model-based studies. Two analyses evaluated entire enhanced recovery pathways and reported them to be cost-effective compared with usual care. Ten pathway components were more effective and cost-saving compared with usual care, three were cost-effective, and two were not cost-effective. We had concerns around risk of bias for all included studies, particularly regarding the short time horizon of the trials and lack of reporting of model validation. CONCLUSIONS:Consistent results supported enhanced recovery pathways as a whole, prophylactic systemic antibiotics, antibiotic-impregnated cement and conventional ventilation for infection prevention. No other interventions were subject of more than one study. We found ample scope for future cost-effectiveness studies, particularly analyses of entire recovery pathways and comparison of incremental changes within pathways. A key limitation is that standard practices have changed over the period covered by the included studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017059473.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The transition between acute care and community care can be a vulnerable period in a patients' treatment due to the potential for postdischarge adverse events. The vulnerability of this period has been attributed to factors related to the miscommunication between hospital-based and community-based physicians. Electronic discharge communication has been proposed as one solution to bridge this communication gap. Prior to widespread implementation of these tools, the costs and benefits should be considered. OBJECTIVE:To establish the cost and cost-effectiveness of electronic discharge communications compared with traditional discharge systems for individuals who have completed care with one provider and are transitioning care to a new provider. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of the published literature, using best practices, to identify economic evaluations/cost analyses of electronic discharge communication tools. Inclusion criteria were: (1) economic analysis and (2) electronic discharge communication tool as the intervention. Quality of each article was assessed, and data were summarised using a component-based analysis. RESULTS:One thousand unique abstracts were identified, and 57 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Four studies met final inclusion criteria. These studies varied in their primary objectives, methodology, costs reported and outcomes. All of the studies were of low to good quality. Three of the studies reported a cost-effectiveness measure ranging from an incremental daily cost of decreasing average discharge note completion by 1?day of $0.331 (2003 Canadian), a cost per page per discharge letter of €9.51 and a dynamic net present value of €31.1?million for a 5-year implementation of the intervention. None of the identified studies considered clinically meaningful patient or quality outcomes. DISCUSSION:Economic analyses of electronic discharge communications are scarcely reported, and with inconsistent methodology and outcomes. Further studies are needed to understand the cost-effectiveness and value for patient care.

Project description:BackgroundAfter more than 25 years, public health programs have not been able to sufficiently reduce the number of new HIV infections. Over 7,000 people become infected with HIV every day. Lack of convincing evidence of cost-effectiveness (CE) may be one of the reasons why implementation of effective programs is not occurring at sufficient scale. This paper identifies, summarizes and critiques the CE literature related to HIV-prevention interventions in low- and middle-income countries during 2005-2008.MethodsSystematic identification of publications was conducted through several methods: electronic databases, internet search of international organizations and major funding/implementing agencies, and journal browsing. Inclusion criteria included: HIV prevention intervention, year for publication (2005-2008), setting (low- and middle-income countries), and CE estimation (empirical or modeling) using outcomes in terms of cost per HIV infection averted and/or cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) or quality-adjusted life year (QALY).ResultsWe found 21 distinct studies analyzing the CE of HIV-prevention interventions published in the past four years (2005-2008). Seventeen CE studies analyzed biomedical interventions; only a few dealt with behavioral and environmental/structural interventions. Sixteen studies focused on sub-Saharan Africa, and only a handful on Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Many HIV-prevention interventions are very cost effective in absolute terms (using costs per DALY averted), and also in country-specific relative terms (in cost per DALY measured as percentage of GDP per capita).ConclusionThere are several types of interventions for which CE studies are still not available or insufficient, including surveillance, abstinence, school-based education, universal precautions, prevention for positives and most structural interventions. The sparse CE evidence available is not easily comparable; thus, not very useful for decision making. More than 25 years into the AIDS epidemic and billions of dollars of spending later, there is still much work to be done both on costs and effectiveness to adequately inform HIV prevention planning.