Skip to main content
Download PDF

Perceptions of general practitioners towards the services provided by advanced practice nurses: a cross-sectional survey in France

BMC Health Services Research volume 23, Article number: 1442 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

New healthcare professions are emerging due to scarce medical resources. The appearance of a new healthcare profession, advanced practice nurses (APNs), has raised questions about how general practitioners interrelate with them as primary care providers. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions general practitioners have towards the services rendered by APNs to patients, to general practice and the role they play in the healthcare system.

Methods

A survey-based, cross-sectional study was conducted throughout the Grand Est region of France which covers 57,333km2 and has a population of approximately 5,562,651. The survey was compiled using pre-existing questionnaires and was carried out from July to September 2022 via email. Variables collected were rate of acceptability and socio-demographic characteristics.

Results

In total, 251 responses were included. The mean age of general practitioners was 41.7 years, most were women (58.2%) and worked in rural areas of the region (53.8%). Over 80% of respondents practiced in group structures (defined as either multi-professional health centers (n = 61) or in group practices (n = 143)). Most respondents (94.0%) were familiar with the APN profession and did not consider that APNs improved access to care (55.8%, percent of responders with score ≤ 3/10). Moreover, most did not believe that APNs were useful as a primary care provider for patients (61.8%). However, being a member of a territorialized healthcare community, known as Communautés Professionnelles Territoriales de Santé (CPTS), was associated with a positive appraisal of APNs’ services (OR = 2.116, 95%CI: 1.223 to 3.712; p = 0.007).

Conclusions

Encouraging shared and networked practice within a healthcare community may promote a positive perception of new actors. Further studies need to be conducted to show whether the integration of APNs into healthcare networks improves quality of care.

Peer Review reports

Background

Population aging has increased the prevalence of chronic diseases leading to a rise in the demand for healthcare services and strain on healthcare systems [1, 2]. By 2040, the supply of general practitioners (GPs) in France is anticipated to decline despite the growing number of responsibilities assigned to them [3, 4]. Moreover, French GPs are increasingly reluctant to take on new patients. A national longitudinal survey pointed out that 65% of GPs refused new patients in 2022 compared to 53% in 2019 [5]. Similar observations have been made in other countries including Ireland where care has been increasingly moved from a hospital setting to the city despite a GP shortage [6]. Most evidently, a lack of GPs is found in elderly care in which the use of new strategies have been required to create more “time for care” [7].

To date, these strategies have encompassed measures including the use of telemedicine [8] to reduce unnecessary consultations and ease the administrative burdens placed on physicians [9]. Another solution has been to substitute GPs with paramedical personnel or advanced practice nurses (APNs) for specific indications. APNs are nurses prepared at a master’s level for advanced clinical practice. In France, they are authorized for first-time prescriptions within a defined scope (stable chronic conditions in primary care, oncology, psychiatry, and emergencies). In comparison, other nursing roles are only given the role of providing refills [10].

According to research, this substitution has demonstrated comparable or even superior outcomes [11, 12], depending on the responsibilities taken by APNs (including managing hypertension), while reducing costs for care [13, 14]. However, effective implementation of such a substitution depends on the collaborative relationship between physicians and APNs in terms of trust, communication, proactive engagement and more notably, the recognition of APNs as autonomous healthcare professionals (HCPs) [15]. In the United Kingdom (UK), nurse-led care is well established, with nurses progressively taking on increasingly advanced roles such as having the responsibility of providing prescriptions which was previously met with occasional anxiety or concern by physicians [16,17,18].

In France, the legal and educational framework for APNs was established in 2016 with the first tertiary qualifications granted in 2019 [19, 20]. Even if French citizens opined that the role of APNs is positive [21], questions have been raised regarding its integration and reception within the French GP community and overall role in general practice. Some have viewed the APN profession as a response to shortcomings in previous healthcare policies, whereas others have expressed the potential risks involved in outsourcing medical services to independent contractors. There are also concerns that a shift in general practice may add unnecessary complexity [22, 23] with a polarized debate in the media surrounding the adoption of APNs and the experiences of other countries that have integrated APNs into healthcare systems over the years [24]. Lastly, APNs are sometimes seen as competitors of GPs who fear seeing their activity decline. The objective of this study was to describe the perceptions GPs had of the services rendered by APNs in terms of their impact on GPs themselves, on patients, on the overall healthcare system as well as additional factors associated with their perceptions.

Methods

Study design

A cross-sectional study based on a 20-item questionnaire was conducted from July to September 2022. The questionnaire was distributed online using the Lime Survey platform (https://www.limesurvey.org). To ensure content validity, the questionnaire was developed after a comprehensive review of literature related to APN practices by a panel of three experts consisting of GPs and public health physicians.

The first eight items of the questionnaire focused on the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents, including their practice setting (urban or rural) and whether they practiced individually or in a group setting. The remaining items (Questions 9 to 20) assessed GPs perspective of the services provided by APNs, namely their impact on general practice (Questions 9 to 11), on patients (Questions 12 to 14) and the organization of care as well as on the impact they have on the healthcare system (Questions 15 to 20). Most items were assessed using a rating scale ranging from 1 (Not useful at all) to 10 (Very useful), or required binary responses (Yes/No). The complete questionnaire can be found in the Supplementary Material.

All GPs who were members of the Union Régionale des Professionnels de Santé de la région Grand-Est (URPS Grand-Est) were initially contacted via email to participate in the study. The URPS Grand-Est is a professional union that represents the interests of private practicing HCPs in the Grand-Est region and participates in the organization of healthcare within the region. Three reminder emails were subsequently sent at 15-day intervals. This study adhered to the Checklist of Reporting Results of Internet-E-Survey (CHERRIES) guidelines to ensure methodological rigor and transparency in reporting the findings [25].

Inclusion/Exclusion criteria

All private practice GPs in the region who were members of the URPS Grand-Est and provided consent to participant in the study were included. Those who refused consent were excluded from the study.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were described as mean ± standard deviation (SD), while categorical variables were expressed as numbers and percentages (%). The perception of the services rendered by APN to general practice was defined as the sum of the scores of three questions that were considered by the expert review to measure a similar construct regarding services rendered by APNs to GPs. These questions were: (i) perceived usefulness of working with an APN as a team (maximum 10 points), (ii) perceived usefulness of the APN to decrease the physicians’ workload (maximum 10 points), and (iii) perceived usefulness of the APN for the follow-up of patients with chronic diseases (maximum 10 points). The sum of question scores was divided by three so that the maximum score for this construct was 10. A correlation coefficient between the results of each of the individual underlying questions (measured by Spearman’s correlation coefficient) was estimated to confirm that each of the underlying questions measured a related concept.

To make the analysis easier to interpret, the summary measure of the perception of the services rendered by APNs to general practice was then dichotomized at the median (in this particular case, dichotomization at the mean would have provided identical results because the variable was symmetrically distributed around the mean). Scores below the median were categorized as “low perception of services rendered by APNs”, whereas scores equal to or above the median were classified as “positive perception of services rendered by APNs”. Chi-squared tests and Student’s t tests were performed to compare the characteristics of groups based on their perceived satisfaction with the services rendered by APNs. Categorial variables were reported with the unadjusted odds ratios (OR) along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).

A multiple logistic regression model was fitted, estimating the probability of a positive perception of services rendered by APN to general practice. The variables entered in the model were chosen based on an expert review of clinical relevance. The multivariate analysis was performed with the following variables: age, sex, place of practice and whether the GP was a member of a territorialized healthcare community, known as les Communautés Professionnelles Territoriales de Santé (CPTS). Model performance was evaluated using the Area Under the Curve (AUC).

A second construct, termed “positive perception of services rendered to patients in primary care”, was obtained by summing the responses of the questions: “How useful do you perceive APNs are regarding the improvement of patient access to healthcare?” and “How useful do you perceive APNs are as a first resort for stabilized patients?”. The result was divided by two in order for the construct to have a theoretical maximum of 10 points. A Spearman correlation coefficient was performed on these variables to confirm that they were measuring a similar underlying concept. As this construct was a secondary outcome, the variables associated with this summary score were solely explored in a univariate analysis. A median split was also performed on this variable so that the results could be conveyed as a comparison between distinct groups according to the perceptions of APNs usefulness. Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.2.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 251 out of 4,357 GPs participated in this study (response rate: 5.8%). Among the respondents, the mean age was 41.7 years and 58.2% were women. In terms of practice location, 53.7% (n = 135) reported their general practice was located in a rural area. More than 80% of the participants (n = 204) practiced in group healthcare structures including multi-professional health centers (n = 61) and group practices (n = 143). Most respondents (94.0%) indicated familiarity with the APN profession.

Service rendered by APNs to general practice

Among the respondents, half of the GPs expressed the belief that working as a team with an APN was not helpful (the median score for this question was 5 out of 10 possible points, Q1 to Q3, 2 to 8). Similarly, responders appeared to have mixed opinions regarding the usefulness of APNs for the long-term follow-up of patients with stable chronic diseases (median score: 5, Q1 to Q3, 2 to 8). Most GPs did not believe that APNs would reduce their workload, as expressed by low scores on the corresponding question: median 3 out of 10 (Q1 to Q3 1 to 6). Pairwise Spearman correlation coefficients between the three above-mentioned variables were all superior to 0.80, confirming that these variables measured a related underlying concept.

The main outcome of a favorable perception of the service provided by APNs for general practice, defined as a score superior or equal to the median score for the sum of the three corresponding questions (normalized to a maximum value of 10), was defined using a cut-off value of 4.7.

In the univariate analysis, the grouped type of practice (vs. the single type) was significantly associated to a more favorable perception of the service provided by APNs for general practice (Odds Ratio OR = 1.923 [95% CI: 1.004 to 3.681]) (Table 1). GPs who were CPTS members (territorialized healthcare community) also exhibited a significantly more positive perception of the service rendered by APNs for general practice (OR = 2.005 [95% CI: 1.179–3.407]).

Table 1 Perceptions of general practitioner’s (GPs) on the services rendered by advanced practice nurses (APNs) in general practice (univariate analysis)
Full size table

In the multivariate analysis, we found a significant association between a GP being a CPTS member and having a more positive perception of APNs. Specifically, GPs belonging to a CPTS member were approximately twice as likely to have favorable views towards the services rendered by APNs than GPs who did not belong to a territorial healthcare community (OR = 2.116 [95% CI: 1.223 to 3.712]; p = 0.007) (Table 2).

Table 2 Perceptions of general practitioner’s (GPs) on the services rendered by advanced practice nurses (APNs) in the field of general practice (multivariate analysis)
Full size table

Services rendered by APNs to patients

Most physicians responded with relatively low scores when asked if APNs would be useful in improving access to care: median 3 (for a maximum of 10 points; Q1 to Q3, 1 to 6). Numerous respondents did not believe that APNs were beneficial as the initial point of contact for patients with stable chronic diseases: the median score for this question was only 2 (for a maximum of 10; Q1 to Q3, 1 to 5). Answers provided for these two questions were highly correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.796), which was in favor of the hypothesis that they both measured a related construct. Overall, the median of the resulting summary score regarding the perception of services provided by APNs to patients was relatively low, indicating that responders were not convinced by the potential offered by APNs for the early treatment of their patients (median 3 out of 10 possible points, Q1 to Q3, 1 to 5.75).

GPs who practiced alone tended to express a less favorable perception of the service provided by APNs to patients than those who practiced in a group setting. Specifically, 59.6% of GPs practicing alone expressed a poor perception of APN services, compared to 45.1% of those practicing in a group setting. However, this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.08) (Table 3).

Table 3 Perceptions of general practitioner’s (GPs) on the services rendered by advanced practice nurses (APNs) towards patients (univariate analysis)
Full size table

Services of APNs rendered to the healthcare system

Most respondents did not think that the APN profession was innovative or that it would contribute to the enhancement of patient care within existing healthcare systems (median score 3 out of 10, Q1 to Q3, 1 to 6). Moreover, responding physicians did not consider that the APN profession would be useful compared to other nursing professions or medical assistants, with a median rating of two out of ten (Q1 to Q3, 1 to 5).

GPs also reported low confidence regarding the probability that APNs would improve communication and collaboration between HCPs: median 2 (out of 10 possible points; Q1 - Q3 1–5). As much as 59.8% of the respondents (150/251) held the opinion that patient care pathways were already crowded as is, with numerous and varying HCPs. Moreover, most responders did not agree that the APN would contribute to a reduction of healthcare costs and expenditure (210 negative answers/251 responders: 83.7%).

Discussion

In this study, we found that GPs perceived the services provided by APNs as not useful or minimally useful to general practice. In 2021, Aghnatios et al. conducted a comparative analysis of stakeholder perceptions towards the APN profession among patients, GPs, self-employed nurses and APN students [26] and found that GPs expressed the greatest hesitation, stating that there had been no consultation on the role to be played by APNs. In a systematic review, Jakimowicz et al. (2017) emphasized the necessity of establishing and maintaining a trusting relationship between GPs and APNs [27]. Given the limited understanding of APNs’ responsibilities by GPs, establishing productive collaborations may require considerable time. However, this could be facilitated through collaborative initiatives [27,28,29]. Considering that the first graduation of APNs in France was in 2019, a potential shift in the perceptions of GPs towards APNs could occur in the years to come.

Current care models are facing challenges in terms of sustainability primarily due to factors such as population aging, rise in chronic diseases as well as the occurrences of epidemics and pandemics [24]. Given the strain on medical resources, physicians are increasingly assuming a supervisory role over other HCPs especially in primary care [24]. Since primary care is patient-centric (rather than disease centered), first-contact care could be provided by trained paramedical personnel or APNs [30]. Therefore, contrary to the perceptions reported in our study, certain tasks and responsibilities such as screening and preventive activities could be appropriately delegated to APNs and do not entail competition in general practice [31, 32].

Our results showed that rural GPs consider the services rendered by APNs to be more significant, when compared to their urban counterparts. As shown in literature, prioritizing the deployment of APNs in rural regions may be a suitable approach to familiarize patients with the profession in France [33,34,35].

According to our survey, the integration of APNs was not perceived by GPs as a good method to enhance access to care. However, this approach is considered to have merit by other actors: a £15 million national investment in the United Kingdom (UK) was certainly based on the assumption that APNs would shorten appointment wait times and provide physicians with more dedicated medical time [9]. It may be worth noting that the system of integrating APNs does not necessarily result in reduced working hours for GPs since it requires supervision and additional organization and meetings [27, 36]. Therefore, a multi-professional teamwork setting could be encouraged [37]. One such initiative aimed to foster inter-professional cooperation within the same geographical area is the establishment of territorial healthcare communities, and our study reflected this since the GPs actively participating in these communities were more likely to perceive APNs as beneficial for both themselves and their patients. This is in line with the results of a study conducted in New Zealand, that shows that managers of general practices working with nurse practitioners (which could be more likely in broader healthcare communities) had a more positive perceptions of their role [38].

Regarding the management of chronic diseases, the literature suggests that compared to GPs, APNs can demonstrate better outcomes in monitoring arterial hypertension [39] and similar outcomes for HbA1c levels in diabetic patients [11, 40]. Similarly, APNs were found to be more effective in preventive care since they could allocate more time to the tasks involved because of the narrower scope of their responsibilities in comparison to GPs [27, 31].

The participants in our study expressed difficulty in understanding the role of APNs within the existing healthcare service landscape. It is worth noting that satisfactory task delegation protocols already exist between physicians and nurses. This may have led respondents to perceive the APN profession as a duplication of existing work structures (3). This perception may likely influence their assessment of the cost/benefit ratio associated with this profession. However, there is currently no evidence in literature suggesting that the integration of APNs marks an inflationary effect on healthcare system costs [11, 40].

Limitations

The main limitation of our study pertained to the characteristics of our sample. Participants that responded to the survey were predominantly comprised of female GPs and with a younger age that does not correspond with the mean demographics of GPs both in France and in the Grand-Est region specifically. Moreover, the low response rate may have imposed a selection bias that may have led to an overrepresentation of GPs who exhibited reluctance towards the integration of APNs in general practice. Considering the nascent nature of the APN profession in France, it is anticipated that the perception of APNs by GPs could evolve when they become more accustomed to the presence of APNs in healthcare practices.

Conclusions

The primary care system in France is currently undergoing significant transformations and the integration of APNs holds promise. GPs who answered the survey in this study had an overall unfavorable perception of the APN profession, except for those who were accustomed to collaborating within multidisciplinary teams. Although other studies have shown that their point of view is not shared by other physicians, our findings show the persistence of an active subgroup of physicians who do not consider APNs as helpful or useful to patients or to the healthcare system. These results may allow GPs to have a better understanding about the advantages of collaborating with APNs. Further studies need to be conducted to show whether the integration of APNs into healthcare networks improves quality of care which could also be communicated to all stakeholders, especially GPs, in order to ensure a greater cooperation between traditional and newer healthcare settings.

Data Availability

The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following licenses/restrictions: these data were provided especially for the purposes of this study. They are therefore not available to the public. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to SS via stephane.sanchez@hcs-sante.fr.

Abbreviations

APN:

advanced practice nurse

AUC:

Area Under the Curve

CPTS:

Communautés Professionnelles Territoriales de Santé

HCP:

Healthcare professional

GP:

General practitioner

References

  1. Dall TM, Gallo PD, Chakrabarti R, West T, Semilla AP, Storm MV. An aging population and growing Disease burden will require a large and specialized health care workforce by 2025. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(11):2013–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Strunk BC, Ginsburg PB, Banker MI. The Effect of Population Aging on Future Hospital demand. Health Aff. 2006;25(Supplement 1):W141–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Loussouarn C, Franc C, Videau Y, Mousquès J. Can General practitioners be more productive? The impact of Teamwork and Cooperation with nurses on GP activities. Health Econ. 2021;30(3):680–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chevreul K, Brigham KB. Health System in France. In: van Ginneken E, Busse R, editors. Health Care Systems and policies. Health Services Research. New York, NY: Springer; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6419-8_9-1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. DREES. Les deux tiers des généralistes déclarent être amenés à refuser de nouveaux patients comme médecin traitant. DREES. ; 2023 May (cited 2023 Oct 5). Report No.: 1267. Available on: https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2023-06/ER1267.pdf.

  6. Burke S, Barry S, Siersbaek R, Johnston B, Ní Fhallúin M, Thomas S. Sláintecare - A ten-year plan to achieve universal healthcare in Ireland. Health Policy. 2018;122(12):1278–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Katz PR, Karuza J. Physician practice in the nursing home: Missing in Action or Misunderstood. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(10):1826–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carrier A, Fernez K, Chrusciel J, Laplanche D, Cormi C, Sanchez S. Gaps to Best practices for Teleconsultations performed by General practitioners: a descriptive cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(10):6220.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Stevens S. General Practice: Forward View. NHS; 2016 Apr (cited 2023 Oct 5). Gateway publication reference: 05116. Available on: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/gpfv.pdf.

  10. Feuillebois B. Évolutions juridiques pour les infirmiers en pratique avancée. Soins. 2023;68(876):52–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Laurant M, van der Biezen M, Wijers N, Watananirun K, Kontopantelis E, van Vught AJ. Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7(7):CD001271.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lovink MH, Persoon A, Koopmans RTCM, Van Vught AJAH, Schoonhoven L, Laurant MGH. Effects of substituting nurse practitioners, physician assistants or nurses for physicians concerning healthcare for the ageing population: a systematic literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73(9):2084–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Agvall B, Alehagen U, Dahlström U. The benefits of using a Heart Failure management programme in Swedish primary healthcare. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15(2):228–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Agvall B, Paulsson T, Foldevi M, Dahlström U, Alehagen U. Resource use and cost implications of implementing a Heart Failure program for patients with systolic Heart Failure in Swedish primary health care. Int J Cardiol. 2014;176(3):731–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lovink MH, Laurant MG, van Vught AJ, Maassen I, Schoonhoven L, Persoon A, et al. Substituting physicians with nurse practitioners, physician assistants or nurses in nursing homes: a realist evaluation case study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e028169.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Koperski M, Rogers S, Drennan V. Nurse practitioners in general practice–an inevitable progression? Br J Gen Pract. 1997;47(424):696–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoare KJ, Mills J, Francis K. The role of government policy in supporting nurse-led care in general practice in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia: an adapted realist review. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(5):963–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mitchell A, Pearce R. Prescribing practice: an overview of the principles. Br J Nurs. 2021;30(17):1016–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. France, Loi. n° 2016-41 du 26 janvier 2016 de modernisation de notre système de santé. Code de la santé publique, 2016-41. 2016 (cited 2023 Oct 5). Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/dossierlegislatif/JORFDOLE000029589477/.

  20. Duffourg A. Question écrite n°03484: Bilan et perspectives de la création du statut d’infirmier en pratique avancée. Journal Officiel du Sénat. 2022 Oct 27 (cited 2023 Oct 5). p. 5260. Available from: https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2022/qSEQ221003484.html.

  21. Brandman JDW, Sato RM. Advanced practice nursing in France: social capital assessment. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2023;35(9):528–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Adenis-Lamarre Y. Dr Patrick Pelloux (AMUF): « Les IPA, c’est l’ubérisation de la médecine ». Le Quotidien du Médecin. 2018 Mar 16 (cited 2023 jan 22). Available on: https://www.lequotidiendumedecin.fr/hopital/urgences/dr-patrick-pelloux-amuf-les-ipa-cest-luberisation-de-la-medecine.

  23. Dumas Primbault M. Le généraliste est mort, vive les infirmier/ères IPA. Le Généraliste. 2020 nov (cited 2023 jan 22). Available on: https://www.legeneraliste.fr/archives/le-generaliste-est-mort-vive-les-infirmiereres-ipa.

  24. Bourgueil Y, Marek A, Mousquès J. Soins primaires: vers une coopération entre médecins et infirmières. Paris: Institut de Recherche et Documentation en Economie de la Santé (IRDES); 2005 Jun (cited 2023 Oct 5). Rapport n° 532. Available on: https://www.irdes.fr/Publications/Rapports2006/rap1624part1.pdf.

  25. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the Checklist for reporting results of internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Aghnatios M, Darloy T, Dictor J, Gasparovicova M, Drouot C, Gasperini F, et al. Soins infirmiers en pratique avancée : représentations Des Acteurs De Ce nouveau dispositif. Santé Publique. 2021;33(4):547–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jakimowicz M, Williams D, Stankiewicz G. A systematic review of experiences of advanced practice nursing in general practice. BMC Nurs. 2017;16(1):6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Contandriopoulos D, Brousselle A, Dubois CA, Perroux M, Beaulieu MD, Brault I, et al. A process-based framework to guide nurse practitioners integration into primary healthcare teams: results from a logic analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. DiCenso A, Bryant-Lukosius D, Martin-Misener R, Donald F, Abelson J, Bourgeault I et al. Factors enabling advanced practice nursing role integration in Canada. Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2010;23 Spec No 2010:211–38.

  30. Lukewich J, Martin-Misener R, Norful AA, Poitras ME, Bryant-Lukosius D, Asghari S, et al. Effectiveness of registered nurses on patient outcomes in primary care: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):740.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Bailey P, Jones L, Way D. Family physician/nurse practitioner: stories of collaboration. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53(4):381–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lurquin B, Kellou N, Colin C, Letrilliart L. Comparison of rural and urban French GPs’ activity: a cross-sectional study. Rural Remote Health. 2021;21(3):5865.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Conger MM, Plager KA. Advanced nursing practice in rural areas: connectedness versus disconnectedness. Online J Rural Nurs Health Care. 2008;8(1):24–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hauenstein EJ, Glick DF, Kane C, Kulbok P, Barbero E, Cox K. A model to develop nurse leaders for rural practice. J Prof Nurs. 2014;30(6):463–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cortelyou-Ward K, Atkins DN, Noblin A, Rotarius T, White P, Carey C. Navigating the Digital divide: barriers to Telehealth in Rural Areas. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2020;31(4):1546–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Torrens C, Campbell P, Hoskins G, Strachan H, Wells M, Cunningham M, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the advanced nurse practitioner role in primary care settings: a scoping review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;104:103443.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Robinson J, Clark S, Greer D. Neurocritical care clinicians’ perceptions of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the intensive care unit. J Neurosci Nurs. 2014;46(2):E3–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mustafa M, Adams S, Bareham C, Carryer J. Employing nurse practitioners in general practice: an exploratory survey of the perspectives of managers. J Prim Health Care. 2021;13(3):274–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Denver EA, Barnard M, Woolfson RG, Earle KA. Management of uncontrolled Hypertension in a nurse-led clinic compared with Conventional Care for patients with type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(8):2256–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kuo YF, Goodwin JS, Chen NW, Lwin KK, Baillargeon J, Raji MA. Diabetes Mellitus Care provided by Nurse practitioners vs Primary Care Physicians. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(10):1980–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Marty Brucato, Sarina Yaghobian and Tatevik Aloyan (AcaciaTools) for their proofreading and reviewing services.

Funding

No Funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Reims Champagne Ardennes, Marne, France

    Charles Goddaert & Pierre-Antoine Gérard

  2. Department of Advanced Practice, University of Reims Champagne Ardennes, Reims, Marne, France

    Charlotte Kessler

  3. Public Health and Performance Department, Champagne Sud Hospital, Troyes, Aube, France

    Mélaine Leblanc, Jan Chrusciel, Clément Cormi & Stéphane Sanchez

  4. University Committee of Resources for Research in Health (CURRS), University of Reims, Marne, France

    Coralie Barbe & Stéphane Sanchez

Authors
  1. Charles Goddaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pierre-Antoine Gérard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charlotte Kessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mélaine Leblanc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Coralie Barbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jan Chrusciel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Clément Cormi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stéphane Sanchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SS, CG and PAG were involved in the conception and design of the study. SS and CC were the coordinators of the study. CG, PAG, CK and JC were responsible for the data collection. CG wrote the first draft. JC and CC were in charge of the analysis. CG, ML, CB, PAG and SS were involved in the interpretation and critically reviewed the first draft. All authors approved the final version and accept responsibility for the paper as published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stéphane Sanchez.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Since this was not an experimental study and did not comprise of an intervention, approval by the ethics committee was not required in accordance with French legislation. The questionnaires were voluntary and anonymous, and consent was provided by the participants at the start of the online questionnaire. Consent to participate: All participants provided informed consent. We confirm that all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goddaert, C., Gérard, PA., Kessler, C. et al. Perceptions of general practitioners towards the services provided by advanced practice nurses: a cross-sectional survey in France. BMC Health Serv Res 23, 1442 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10420-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10420-y

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us