Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing (NMP).<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review. Two reviewers independently completed searches, eligibility assessment and assessment of risk of bias.<h4>Data sources</h4>Pre-defi...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2018-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193286&type=printable |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850168933483544576 |
|---|---|
| author | Timothy Noblet John Marriott Emma Graham-Clarke Debra Shirley Alison Rushton |
| author_facet | Timothy Noblet John Marriott Emma Graham-Clarke Debra Shirley Alison Rushton |
| author_sort | Timothy Noblet |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing (NMP).<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review. Two reviewers independently completed searches, eligibility assessment and assessment of risk of bias.<h4>Data sources</h4>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.<h4>Eligibility criteria for included studies</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusion</h4>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.<h4>Registration</h4>PROSPERO (CRD42015017212). |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-78badfa8159f47f5a188f1d27dbf307a |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-78badfa8159f47f5a188f1d27dbf307a2025-08-20T02:20:51ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032018-01-01133e019328610.1371/journal.pone.0193286Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.Timothy NobletJohn MarriottEmma Graham-ClarkeDebra ShirleyAlison Rushton<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing (NMP).<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review. Two reviewers independently completed searches, eligibility assessment and assessment of risk of bias.<h4>Data sources</h4>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.<h4>Eligibility criteria for included studies</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusion</h4>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.<h4>Registration</h4>PROSPERO (CRD42015017212).https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193286&type=printable |
| spellingShingle | Timothy Noblet John Marriott Emma Graham-Clarke Debra Shirley Alison Rushton Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. PLoS ONE |
| title | Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. |
| title_full | Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. |
| title_fullStr | Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. |
| title_short | Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. |
| title_sort | clinical and cost effectiveness of non medical prescribing a systematic review of randomised controlled trials |
| url | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193286&type=printable |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT timothynoblet clinicalandcosteffectivenessofnonmedicalprescribingasystematicreviewofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT johnmarriott clinicalandcosteffectivenessofnonmedicalprescribingasystematicreviewofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT emmagrahamclarke clinicalandcosteffectivenessofnonmedicalprescribingasystematicreviewofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT debrashirley clinicalandcosteffectivenessofnonmedicalprescribingasystematicreviewofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT alisonrushton clinicalandcosteffectivenessofnonmedicalprescribingasystematicreviewofrandomisedcontrolledtrials |