IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0259183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost-effectiveness of physician assistants/associates: A systematic review of international evidence

Author

Listed:
  • G T W J van den Brink
  • R S Hooker
  • A J Van Vught
  • H Vermeulen
  • M G H Laurant

Abstract

Background: The global utilization of the physician assistant/associate (PA) is growing. Their increasing presence is in response to the rising demands of demographic changes, new developments in healthcare, and physician shortages. While PAs are present on four continents, the evidence of whether their employment contributes to more efficient healthcare has not been assessed in the aggregate. We undertook a systematic review of the literature on PA cost-effectiveness as compared to physicians. Cost-effectiveness was operationalized as quality, accessibility, and the cost of care. Methods and findings: Literature to June 2021 was searched across five biomedical databases and filtered for eligibility. Publications that met the inclusion criteria were categorized by date, country, design, and results by three researchers independently. All studies were screened with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies—of Interventions (ROBIN-I) tool. The literature search produced 4,855 titles, and after applying criteria, 39 studies met inclusion (34 North America, 4 Europe, 1 Africa). Ten studies had a prospective design, and 29 were retrospective. Four studies were assessed as biased in results reporting. While most studies included a small number of PAs, five studies were national in origin and assessed the employment of a few hundred PAs and their care of thousands of patients. In 34 studies, the PA was employed as a substitute for traditional physician services, and in five studies, the PA was employed in a complementary role. The quality of care delivered by a PA was comparable to a physician’s care in 15 studies, and in 18 studies, the quality of care exceeded that of a physician. In total, 29 studies showed that both labor and resource costs were lower when the PA delivered the care than when the physician delivered the care. Conclusions: Most of the studies were of good methodological quality, and the results point in the same direction; PAs delivered the same or better care outcomes as physicians with the same or less cost of care. Sometimes this efficiency was due to their reduced labor cost and sometimes because they were more effective as producers of care and activity.

Suggested Citation

  • G T W J van den Brink & R S Hooker & A J Van Vught & H Vermeulen & M G H Laurant, 2021. "The cost-effectiveness of physician assistants/associates: A systematic review of international evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-27, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259183
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259183
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259183&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0259183?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0259183. 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: 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.