A global perspective of advanced practice nursing research: A review of systematic reviews

Kelley Kilpatrick; Isabelle Savard; Li Anne Audet; Gina Costanzo; Mariam Khan; Renée Atallah; Mira Jabbour; Wentao Zhou; Kathy Wheeler; Elissa Ladd; Deborah C. Gray; Colette Henderson; Lori A. Spies; Heather McGrath; Melanie Rogers

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305008

A global perspective of advanced practice nursing research: A review of systematic reviews

Kelley Kilpatrick (Lead / Corresponding author), Isabelle Savard (Lead / Corresponding author), Li Anne Audet (Lead / Corresponding author), Gina Costanzo, Mariam Khan, Renée Atallah, Mira Jabbour, Wentao Zhou, Kathy Wheeler, Elissa Ladd, Deborah C. Gray, Colette Henderson, Lori A. Spies, Heather McGrath, Melanie Rogers

Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

38 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) called for the expansion of all nursing roles, including advanced practice nurses (APNs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs). A clearer understanding of the impact of these roles will inform global priorities for advanced practice nursing education, research, and policy.

Objective

To identify gaps in advanced practice nursing research globally.

Materials and methods

A review of systematic reviews was conducted. We searched CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Healthstar, PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, DARE, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, and Web of Science from January 2011 onwards, with no restrictions on jurisdiction or language. Grey literature and hand searches of reference lists were undertaken. Review quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP). Study selection, data extraction and CASP assessments were done independently by two reviewers. We extracted study characteristics, country and outcome data. Data were summarized using narrative synthesis.

Results

We screened 5840 articles and retained 117 systematic reviews, representing 38 countries. Most CASP criteria were met. However, study selection by two reviewers was done inconsistently and language and geographical restrictions were applied. We found highly consistent evidence that APN, NP and CNS care was equal or superior to the comparator (e.g., physicians) for 29 indicator categories across a wide range of clinical settings, patient populations and acuity levels. Mixed findings were noted for quality of life, consultations, costs, emergency room visits, and health care service delivery where some studies favoured the control groups. No indicator consistently favoured the control group. There is emerging research related to Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Conclusion

There is a large body of advanced practice nursing research globally, but several WHO regions are underrepresented. Identified research gaps include AI, interprofessional team functioning, workload, and patients and families as partners in healthcare.

Original language	English
Article number	e0305008
Number of pages	27
Journal	PLoS ONE
Volume	19
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305008
Publication status	Published - 2 Jul 2024

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General

Access to Document

10.1371/journal.pone.0305008Licence: CC BY

Final Published VersionFinal published version, 1.88 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Kilpatrick, K., Savard, I., Audet, L. A., Costanzo, G., Khan, M., Atallah, R., Jabbour, M., Zhou, W., Wheeler, K., Ladd, E., Gray, D. C., Henderson, C., Spies, L. A., McGrath, H., & Rogers, M. (2024). A global perspective of advanced practice nursing research: A review of systematic reviews. PLoS ONE, 19(7), Article e0305008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305008

@article{1717a82d3ce843618f7022049148ceb1,

title = "A global perspective of advanced practice nursing research: A review of systematic reviews",

abstract = "Introduction The World Health Organization (WHO) called for the expansion of all nursing roles, including advanced practice nurses (APNs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs). A clearer understanding of the impact of these roles will inform global priorities for advanced practice nursing education, research, and policy. Objective To identify gaps in advanced practice nursing research globally. Materials and methods A review of systematic reviews was conducted. We searched CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Healthstar, PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, DARE, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, and Web of Science from January 2011 onwards, with no restrictions on jurisdiction or language. Grey literature and hand searches of reference lists were undertaken. Review quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP). Study selection, data extraction and CASP assessments were done independently by two reviewers. We extracted study characteristics, country and outcome data. Data were summarized using narrative synthesis. Results We screened 5840 articles and retained 117 systematic reviews, representing 38 countries. Most CASP criteria were met. However, study selection by two reviewers was done inconsistently and language and geographical restrictions were applied. We found highly consistent evidence that APN, NP and CNS care was equal or superior to the comparator (e.g., physicians) for 29 indicator categories across a wide range of clinical settings, patient populations and acuity levels. Mixed findings were noted for quality of life, consultations, costs, emergency room visits, and health care service delivery where some studies favoured the control groups. No indicator consistently favoured the control group. There is emerging research related to Artificial Intelligence (AI). Conclusion There is a large body of advanced practice nursing research globally, but several WHO regions are underrepresented. Identified research gaps include AI, interprofessional team functioning, workload, and patients and families as partners in healthcare.",

author = "Kelley Kilpatrick and Isabelle Savard and Audet, {Li Anne} and Gina Costanzo and Mariam Khan and Ren{\'e}e Atallah and Mira Jabbour and Wentao Zhou and Kathy Wheeler and Elissa Ladd and Gray, {Deborah C.} and Colette Henderson and Spies, {Lori A.} and Heather McGrath and Melanie Rogers",

note = "Publisher Copyright: Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2024 Kilpatrick et al.",

year = "2024",

month = jul,

day = "2",

doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0305008",

language = "English",

volume = "19",

journal = "PLoS ONE",

issn = "1932-6203",

publisher = "Public Library of Science",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A global perspective of advanced practice nursing research

T2 - A review of systematic reviews

AU - Kilpatrick, Kelley

AU - Savard, Isabelle

AU - Audet, Li Anne

AU - Costanzo, Gina

AU - Khan, Mariam

AU - Atallah, Renée

AU - Jabbour, Mira

AU - Zhou, Wentao

AU - Wheeler, Kathy

AU - Ladd, Elissa

AU - Gray, Deborah C.

AU - Henderson, Colette

AU - Spies, Lori A.

AU - McGrath, Heather

AU - Rogers, Melanie

PY - 2024/7/2

Y1 - 2024/7/2

N2 - Introduction The World Health Organization (WHO) called for the expansion of all nursing roles, including advanced practice nurses (APNs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs). A clearer understanding of the impact of these roles will inform global priorities for advanced practice nursing education, research, and policy. Objective To identify gaps in advanced practice nursing research globally. Materials and methods A review of systematic reviews was conducted. We searched CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Healthstar, PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, DARE, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, and Web of Science from January 2011 onwards, with no restrictions on jurisdiction or language. Grey literature and hand searches of reference lists were undertaken. Review quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP). Study selection, data extraction and CASP assessments were done independently by two reviewers. We extracted study characteristics, country and outcome data. Data were summarized using narrative synthesis. Results We screened 5840 articles and retained 117 systematic reviews, representing 38 countries. Most CASP criteria were met. However, study selection by two reviewers was done inconsistently and language and geographical restrictions were applied. We found highly consistent evidence that APN, NP and CNS care was equal or superior to the comparator (e.g., physicians) for 29 indicator categories across a wide range of clinical settings, patient populations and acuity levels. Mixed findings were noted for quality of life, consultations, costs, emergency room visits, and health care service delivery where some studies favoured the control groups. No indicator consistently favoured the control group. There is emerging research related to Artificial Intelligence (AI). Conclusion There is a large body of advanced practice nursing research globally, but several WHO regions are underrepresented. Identified research gaps include AI, interprofessional team functioning, workload, and patients and families as partners in healthcare.

AB - Introduction The World Health Organization (WHO) called for the expansion of all nursing roles, including advanced practice nurses (APNs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs). A clearer understanding of the impact of these roles will inform global priorities for advanced practice nursing education, research, and policy. Objective To identify gaps in advanced practice nursing research globally. Materials and methods A review of systematic reviews was conducted. We searched CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Healthstar, PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, DARE, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, and Web of Science from January 2011 onwards, with no restrictions on jurisdiction or language. Grey literature and hand searches of reference lists were undertaken. Review quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP). Study selection, data extraction and CASP assessments were done independently by two reviewers. We extracted study characteristics, country and outcome data. Data were summarized using narrative synthesis. Results We screened 5840 articles and retained 117 systematic reviews, representing 38 countries. Most CASP criteria were met. However, study selection by two reviewers was done inconsistently and language and geographical restrictions were applied. We found highly consistent evidence that APN, NP and CNS care was equal or superior to the comparator (e.g., physicians) for 29 indicator categories across a wide range of clinical settings, patient populations and acuity levels. Mixed findings were noted for quality of life, consultations, costs, emergency room visits, and health care service delivery where some studies favoured the control groups. No indicator consistently favoured the control group. There is emerging research related to Artificial Intelligence (AI). Conclusion There is a large body of advanced practice nursing research globally, but several WHO regions are underrepresented. Identified research gaps include AI, interprofessional team functioning, workload, and patients and families as partners in healthcare.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85197652583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0305008

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0305008

M3 - Article

C2 - 38954675

AN - SCOPUS:85197652583

SN - 1932-6203

VL - 19

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

IS - 7

M1 - e0305008

ER -

A global perspective of advanced practice nursing research: A review of systematic reviews

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

A global perspective of advanced practice nursing research: a review of systematic reviews protocol

Cite this