↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of experiences of advanced practice nursing in general practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review of experiences of advanced practice nursing in general practice
Published in
BMC Nursing, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12912-016-0198-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Jakimowicz, Danielle Williams, Grazyna Stankiewicz

Abstract

Despite efforts to achieve conceptual clarity, advanced practice nursing continues to reside in a liminal space, unable to secure ongoing recognition as a viable means of healthcare delivery. This is particularly evident in general practice where advanced practice role development is more fluid and generally less supported by the hierarchical structures evident in the hospital system. This review synthesises published qualitative studies reporting experiences of advanced practice nursing in general practice. The panoramic view provided by patients, nurses and doctors within this novel context, offers a fresh perspective on why advanced practice nurses have struggled to gain acceptance within the healthcare milieu. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies that explored the experiences of patients, nurses and doctors who had contact with advanced practice nurses working in general practice. Published work from 1990 to June 2016 was located using CINAHL and PubMed. The full text of relevant studies was retrieved after reading the title and abstract. Critical appraisal was undertaken and the findings of included studies were analysed using the constant comparative method. Emergent codes were collapsed into sub-themes and themes. Twenty articles reporting the experiences of 486 participants were included. We identified one major theme: legitimacy; and three sub-themes: (1) establishing and maintaining confidence in the advanced practice nurse, (2) strengthening and weakening boundaries between general practitioners and advanced practice nurses and (3) establishing and maintaining the value of advanced practice nursing. We set out to describe experiences of advanced practice nursing in general practice. We discovered that general practitioners and patients continue to have concerns around responsibility, trust and accountability. Additionally, advanced practice nurses struggle to negotiate and clarify scopes of practice while general practitioners have trouble justifying the costs associated with advanced practice nursing roles. Therefore, much work remains to establish and maintain the legitimacy of advanced practice nursing in general practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 204 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 24%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Researcher 14 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 4%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 69 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 98 48%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 1%
Psychology 3 1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 <1%
Other 9 4%
Unknown 69 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2020.
All research outputs
#4,204,466
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#122
of 756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,233
of 418,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,417 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.