IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/197868111090-1096_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative study of physicians' and nurses' conceptions of the role of the nurse practitioner

Author

Listed:
  • Burkett, G.L.
  • Parken-Harris, M.
  • Kuhn, J.C.
  • Escovitz, G.H.

Abstract

Attempts to define the role of the nurse practitioner as a new health care provider raise questions about the traditional health care division of labor. In order to determine nurses' and physicians' conceptions of the NP's role, parallel surveys were conducted among registered nurses and primary care physicians in southeastern Pennsylvania (including Philadelphia). Respondents (679 nurses and 597 physicians) indicated their opinions on the issue of autonomy for NPs and on the issue of specific tasks appropriate to the NP's role. There were significant differences between nurses and physicians with respect to both of the issues under consideration, but there were also important differences within each of these groups. Nurses were more likely to assert that an NP might practice independently, and also had a higher conception of the NP's capabilities. Physicians who were interested in employing a nurse practitioner had opinions which were closest to those of nurses. These findings suggest that conflict between nurses and physicians might be minimal as long as the nurse practitioner movement remains relatively small, but that there may be latent conflict inherent in any large scale attempt to change the health care division of labor at the present time.

Suggested Citation

  • Burkett, G.L. & Parken-Harris, M. & Kuhn, J.C. & Escovitz, G.H., 1978. "A comparative study of physicians' and nurses' conceptions of the role of the nurse practitioner," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 68(11), pages 1090-1096.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1978:68:11:1090-1096_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1978:68:11:1090-1096_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.