Skip to main content

Table 2 Description of included studies

From: Physician associate/assistant contributions to cancer diagnosis in primary care: a rapid systematic review

Study

Study objective

Location

Region

Setting

Sitesa)

Design (data collection)

Task or outcome

Risk of biasb)

1. Blaes et al., 2019 [17]

Determine primary care providers’ screening practices for women at high risk of breast cancer, & examine differences in practices and knowledge of recommendations across providers

USA

Minnesota

Primary care

n/a

Cross-sectional (survey)

Screening

High

2. Boone et al., 2016 [18]

Understand what may limit adherence to new screening policies

USA

California

Primary care

n/a

Cross-sectional (survey)

Screening

Medium

3. Brock et al., 2017 [19]

Compare rates of malpractice reports and adverse actions for physicians, physician assistants (PAs), and nurse practitioners (NPs)

USA

National

Secondary & primary care

n/a

Longitudinal (claims)

Diagnosis (delay or failure to diagnose)

Medium

4. Burrows et al., 2020 [20]

Explore PA role integration in the Ontario healthcare system through an in-depth analysis of setting and role descriptions, described outcomes, and healthcare provider perceptions

Canada

Ontario

Secondary & primary care

19

Case study (interviews, documentary analysis)

Referrals to other physicians

Low

5. Drennan et al. 2015 [21]

Compare outcomes and costs of same-day requested consultations by PAs with those of GPs

England

South, East, & South West

Primary care

12

Longitudinal (medical records)

Diagnostic tests

Referrals to other physicians

Low

6. Feeley et al., 2009 [22]

Explore how colorectal cancer screening is approached in primary care

USA

New York

Primary care

n/a

Qualitative (focus groups)

Screening

High

7. Hughes et al., 2015 [23]

Compare use of diagnostic tests by NPs and PAs and PCPs

USA

National

Primary care

Not stated

Longitudinal (medical records)

Diagnostic tests

Medium

8. Johnson et al., 2019 [24]

Determine whether Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) provided the same quality care as physicians in a variety of settings

USA

National

Secondary & primary care

4

Quasi-experimental (online vignettes)

History taking, physical examination, diagnostic tests ordered, making a diagnosis

High

9. Kepka D et al. 2014 [25]

Evaluate the relationship between type of medical provider seen in the past 12 months and receipt of cancer screening

USA

National

Secondary & primary care

n/a

Cross-sectional (survey)

Screening

Medium /low

10. Kurtzman et al., 2017 [26]

Compare the quality of care and practice patterns of NPs, PAs, and primary care physicians in health centres

USA

National

Primary care

104

Longitudinal (repeated cross- sectional surveys)

Referrals to other physicians

Physical examination

Reconsultation

Low

11. Laird et al., 2020 [27]

1) describe and compare Texas NP & PA knowledge and use of screening guidelines for colorectal cancer 2) compare recommendations for referral for genetic counselling for colorectal or endometrial cancer

USA

Texas

Primary care

n/a

Cross-sectional (survey)

Screening

High

12. Liu et al. 2017 [28]

What impact NPs and PAs have on utilization in a setting where physician-supervised NPs and PAs provide face-to-face primary care

USA

Georgia

Primary care

10

Quasi-experimental (medical records)

Diagnostic tests ordered

Referrals to other physicians

ED visits

Medium

13. Mafi et al., 2016 [29]

Compare APCs and physicians in providing inefficient or low-value care [radiography (for URIs and back pain), computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (for headache and back pain), and referrals to other physicians]

USA

National

Primary care

n/a

Longitudinal (repeated cross- sectional surveys)

Diagnostic tests ordered

Referrals to other physicians

Low

14. Martin et al. 2020 [30]

Compare health care providers’ breast cancer screening practices for average-risk women at the ages of 40–44 and 45–49 years

USA

Minnesota

Primary care

n/a

Cross-sectional (survey)

Screening

High

15. Tang et al. 2016 [31]

Clinician factors are associated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in older veterans with limited life expectancy

USA

National

Secondary & primary care

 

Cross-sectional (medical records)

Screening

Low/medium

  1. a. Sites: n/a stated where data were collected from individual providers and analysis was not available or applicable at site level
  2. b. High, medium or low. Detailed assessment of bias and other considerations of quality and relevance are given in Supplementary data