IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0193286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Noblet
  • John Marriott
  • Emma Graham-Clarke
  • Debra Shirley
  • Alison Rushton

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing (NMP). Design: Systematic review. Two reviewers independently completed searches, eligibility assessment and assessment of risk of bias. Data sources: Pre-defined search terms/combinations were utilised to search electronic databases. In addition, hand searches of reference lists, key journals and grey literature were employed alongside consultation with authors/experts. Eligibility criteria for included studies: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical or cost-effectiveness of NMP. Measurements reported on one or more outcome(s) of: pain, function, disability, health, social impact, patient-safety, costs-analysis, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), patient satisfaction, clinician perception of clinical and functional outcomes. Results: Three RCTs from two countries were included (n = 932 participants) across primary and tertiary care settings. One RCT was assessed as low risk of bias, one as high risk of bias and one as unclear risk of bias. All RCTs evaluated clinical effectiveness with one also evaluating cost-effectiveness. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated using a range of safety and patient-reported outcome measures. Participants demonstrated significant improvement in outcomes when receiving NMP compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in all RCTs. An associated cost analysis showed NMP to be more expensive than TAU (regression coefficient p = 0.0000), however experimental groups generated increased QALYs compared to TAU. Conclusion: Limited evidence with overall unclear risk of bias exists evaluating clinical and cost-effectiveness of NMP across all professions and clinical settings. GRADE assessment revealed moderate quality evidence. Evidence suggests that NMP is safe and can provide beneficial clinical outcomes. Benefits to the health economy remain unclear, with the cost-effectiveness of NMP assessed by a single pilot RCT of low risk of bias. Adequately powered low risk of bias RCTs evaluating clinical and cost effectiveness are required to evaluate NMP across clinical specialities, professions and settings. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42015017212).

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Noblet & John Marriott & Emma Graham-Clarke & Debra Shirley & Alison Rushton, 2018. "Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193286
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193286
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193286
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193286&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0193286?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicola Carey & Karen Stenner & Molly Courtenay, 2010. "Stakeholder views on the impact of nurse prescribing on dermatology services," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3‐4), pages 498-506, February.
    2. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    3. Alessandro Liberati & Douglas G Altman & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Cynthia Mulrow & Peter C Gøtzsche & John P A Ioannidis & Mike Clarke & P J Devereaux & Jos Kleijnen & David Moher, 2009. "The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-28, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tinne Dilles & Jana Heczkova & Styliani Tziaferi & Ann Karin Helgesen & Vigdis Abrahamsen Grøndahl & Bart Van Rompaey & Carolien G. Sino & Sue Jordan, 2021. "Nurses and Pharmaceutical Care: Interprofessional, Evidence-Based Working to Improve Patient Care and Outcomes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-11, June.
    2. van Schalkwyk, May CI & Bourek, Aleš & Kringos, Dionne Sofia & Siciliani, Luigi & Barry, Margaret M. & De Maeseneer, Jan & McKee, Martin, 2020. "The best person (or machine) for the job: Rethinking task shifting in healthcare," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(12), pages 1379-1386.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alessandro Concari & Gerjo Kok & Pim Martens, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Review of Concepts and Factors Related to Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Waste Management Through an Interdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-50, May.
    2. Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Frank Peinemann & Ulrich Grouven & Nicolaus Kröger & Carmen Bartel & Max H Pittler & Stefan Lange, 2011. "First-Line Matched Related Donor Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Compared to Immunosuppressive Therapy in Acquired Severe Aplastic Anemia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Jonathan Kingsley & Aisling Bailey & Nooshin Torabi & Pauline Zardo & Suzanne Mavoa & Tonia Gray & Danielle Tracey & Philip Pettitt & Nicholas Zajac & Emily Foenander, 2019. "A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-12, September.
    5. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    6. Sibonokuhle Ndlovu, 2023. "Preparedness and Response to COVID-19 Disruptions and Learning Challenges for Students with Disabilities in South Africa: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    7. Abbas Mardani & Dalia Streimikiene & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Mehrbakhsh Nilashi & Ahmad Jusoh & Habib Zare, 2017. "Application of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to Solve Environmental Sustainability Problems: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-65, October.
    8. Luísa Bandeira Lopes & João Albernaz Neves & João Botelho & Vanessa Machado & José João Mendes, 2021. "Regenerative Endodontic Procedures: An Umbrella Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-17, January.
    9. Gaspar, Rui & Yan, Zheng & Domingos, Samuel, 2019. "Extreme natural and man-made events and human adaptive responses mediated by information and communication technologies' use: A systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 125-135.
    10. Nicholas A. Kirk & Nicholas A. Cradock-Henry, 2022. "Land Management Change as Adaptation to Climate and Other Stressors: A Systematic Review of Decision Contexts Using Values-Rules-Knowledge," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, May.
    11. Abbas Mardani & Mehrbakhsh Nilashi & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Madjid Tavana & Romualdas Bausys & Othman Ibrahim, 2017. "Recent Fuzzy Generalisations of Rough Sets Theory: A Systematic Review and Methodological Critique of the Literature," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-33, October.
    12. Wen-Hsiu Yeh & Ya-Ju Ju & Yu-Ting Liu & Ting-Yi Wang, 2022. "Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Neurofeedback Training of Theta Activity on Working Memory and Episodic Memory in Healthy Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-14, September.
    13. Gourzoulidis, George & Kourlaba, Georgia & Stafylas, Panagiotis & Giamouzis, Gregory & Parissis, John & Maniadakis, Nikolaos, 2017. "Association between copayment, medication adherence and outcomes in the management of patients with diabetes and heart failure," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(4), pages 363-377.
    14. Cristina Chifor & Iulia D. Arion & Vlad I. Isarie & Felix H. Arion, 2022. "A Systematic Literature Review on European Food Quality Schemes in Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Snyder, Hannah, 2019. "Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 333-339.
    16. Pineros-Leano, María & Parchment, Tyrone M. & Calvo, Rocío, 2023. "Family interventions to improve mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes among Latinx youth: A systematic review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    17. Teresa Loda & Rebecca Erschens & Hannah Loenneker & Katharina E Keifenheim & Christoph Nikendei & Florian Junne & Stephan Zipfel & Anne Herrmann-Werner, 2019. "Cognitive and social congruence in peer-assisted learning – A scoping review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, September.
    18. Emma N Bermingham & David G Thomas & Nicholas J Cave & Penelope J Morris & Richard F Butterwick & Alexander J German, 2014. "Energy Requirements of Adult Dogs: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-23, October.
    19. Diego Tlapa & Ignacio Franco-Alucano & Jorge Limon-Romero & Yolanda Baez-Lopez & Guilherme Tortorella, 2022. "Lean, Six Sigma, and Simulation: Evidence from Healthcare Interventions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-25, December.
    20. Carlos Zepeda-Lugo & Diego Tlapa & Yolanda Baez-Lopez & Jorge Limon-Romero & Sinue Ontiveros & Armando Perez-Sanchez & Guilherme Tortorella, 2020. "Assessing the Impact of Lean Healthcare on Inpatient Care: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-24, August.

    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:plo:pone00:0193286. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.