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

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. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021278532.

Identifying indicators sensitive to primary healthcare nurse practitioner practice: A review of systematic reviews.

AIM: To identify indicators sensitive to the practice of primary healthcare nurse practitioners (PHCNPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of systematic reviews was undertaken to identify indicators sensitive to PHCNP practice. Published and grey literature was searched from January 1, 2010 to December 2, 2022. Titles/abstracts (n = 4251) and full texts (n = 365) were screened independently by two reviewers, with a third acting as a tie-breaker. Reference lists of relevant publications were reviewed. Risk of bias was examined independently by two reviewers using AMSTAR-2. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer to describe study characteristics, indicators, and results. Indicators were recoded into categories. Findings were summarized using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Forty-four systematic reviews were retained including 271 indicators that were recoded into 26 indicator categories at the patient, provider and health system levels. Nineteen reviews were assessed to be at low risk of bias. Patient indicator categories included activities of daily living, adaptation to health conditions, clinical conditions, diagnosis, education-patient, mortality, patient adherence, quality of life, satisfaction, and signs and symptoms. Provider indicator categories included adherence to best practice-providers, education-providers, illness prevention, interprofessional team functioning, and prescribing. Health system indicator categories included access to care, consultations, costs, emergency room visits, healthcare service delivery, hospitalizations, length of stay, patient safety, quality of care, scope of practice, and wait times. DISCUSSION: Equal to improved care for almost all indicators was found consistently for the PHCNP group. Very few indicators favoured the control group. No indicator was identified for high/low fidelity simulation, cultural safety and cultural sensitivity with people in vulnerable situations or Indigenous Peoples. CONCLUSION: This review of systematic reviews identified patient, provider and health system indicators sensitive to PHCNP practice. The findings help clarify how PHCNPs contribute to care outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198182.