Skip to main content
. 2015 Jul 7;13:55. doi: 10.1186/s12960-015-0049-8

Table 3.

Effect estimates of studies in review

Study Nurses’ role Population diagnosis Outcome Measurement method/scale FUP, months Nurse group Physician group Effect estimate
First author, y Location
Binary data n N n N RR (95 % CI)
 Heart disease
  Andryukhin et al., 2011 [18] RU 1 NP/LN Heart failure PEF Positiveb changes in class HF NYHA 6 18 40 8 35 1.97 (0.98 to 3.96)
  Campbell et al., 1998 [1921, 2931, 33] UK 1 NP CHD secondary prevention Chest pain ATyPeS/SF36a 12 232 508 250 498 0.91 (0.80 to 1.04)
  Campbell et al., 1998 [1921, 2931, 33] UK 1 NP CHD secondary prevention Chest pain ATyPeS/SF36 48 147 430 129 385 1.02 (0.84 to 1.24)
  Campbell et al., 1998 [1921, 2931, 33] UK 1 NP CHD secondary prevention Worsening chest pain ATyPeS/SF36 12 37 519 54 500 0.66 (0.44 to 0.98)
  Campbell et al., 1998 [1921, 2931, 33] UK 1 NP CHD secondary prevention Worsening chest pain ATyPeS/SF36 48 44 439 35 395 1.13 (0.74 to 1.73)
 Lung disease
  Hesselink et al., 2004 [26] NL 1 LN Asthma/COPD No chronic cough and phlegm production or an improvement Present/absent 12 43 108 39 85 0.87 (0.63 to 1.20)
  Hesselink et al., 2004 [26] NL 1 LN Asthma/COPD No chronic cough and phlegm production or an improvement Present/absent 24 41 93 33 79 1.06 (0.75 to 1.49)
  Hesselink et al., 2004 [26] NL 1 LN Asthma/COPD No wheezing or an improvement in frequency Never, ever, most days and night 12 68 106 51 85 1.07 (0.85 to 1.34)
  Hesselink et al., 2004 [26] NL 1 LN Asthma/COPD No wheezing or an improvement in frequency Never, ever, most days and night 24 53 93 37 79 1.22 (0.91 to 1.63)
 Infectious disease
  Fairall et al., 2012 [25] ZA 2 LN HIV/AIDS Suppressed viral load in patients receiving ARTd Viral load 12–18 2156 3029 2230 3202 1.02 (0.99 to 1.06)
  Fairall et al., 2012 [25] ZA 1 LN HIV/AIDS Suppressed viral load in patients starting ARTd Viral load 12–18 1706 2375 1062 1449 0.98 (0.94 to 1.02)
 Diverse, acute and minor conditions
  Shum et al., 2000 [32] UK 2 NP Acute and minor Same, improved or cured self-reported health status Murphy 0.5 650 672 646 661 0.99 (0.97 to 1.01)
  Kinnersley et al., 2000 [34] UK 3 NP Diverse conditions Same or improved symptoms (much better, better or unchanged) Likert-type and single reminders 0.5 472 484 515 529 1.00 (0.98 to 1.02)
Continuous data Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) N WMD (95 % CI)
 Lung disease
  Hesselink et al., 2004 [26] NL 1 LN Asthma/COPD Mean change score in dyspnea MRCQTc 12 0.00 (1.3) 115 0.10 (1.3) 94 −0.10 (−0.45 to 0.25)
  Hesselink et al., 2004 [26] NL 1 LN Asthma/COPD Mean change score in dyspnea MRCQTc 24 0.20 (1.4) 96 0.30 (1.3) 80 −0.10 (−0.50 to 0.30)
 Metabolic disease
  Denver et al., 2003 [23] UK 5 NP+ DM2 with hypertension, under BPLT Mean fall in 10-year CHD risk Framingham CHD risk score 6 −2.33 (3.87) 59 −0.33 (2.16) 56 −2.00 (−3.14 to −0.86)
  Denver et al., 2003 [23] UK 5 NP+ DM2 with hypertension, under BPLT Mean fall in 10-year stroke risk Framingham stroke risk score 6 −4.33 (6.0) 59 −1.80 (3.53) 56 −2.53 (−4.32 to −0.74)
 Digestive disease
  Chan et al., 2009 [22] UK 6 NP+ GORD, moderate gastritis Mean score, dyspepsia severity GDSS (Gladys) scoreg 6 4.90 (2.9) 89 7.20 (3.1) 86 −2.30 (−3.19 to −1.41)
 Skin disease
  Kernick et al., 2000 [28] UK 4 NP+ Psoriasis/eczema Mean score for symptoms and severity of skin condition Self-evaluation clinical scoree 4 7.60 (3.3) 35 8.1 (3.3) 46 −0.50 (−1.95 to 0.95)
 Common complaints
  Dierick-van Daele et al., 2009 [24] NL 2 NP+ Common complaints Mean difference in the degree of burden of illness LikertQTf 0.5 −1.77 (3.18) 473 −1.50 (2.63) 451 −0.27 (−0.65 to 0.11)
  Dierick-van Daele et al., 2009 [24] NL 2 NP+ Common complaints Mean difference in the concerns about illness LikertQTf 0.5 −1.51 (3.20) 476 −1.40 (2.97) 450 −0.11 (−0.51 to 0.29)
Qualitative data
 Metabolic disease
  Houweling et al., 2011 [27] NL 3 NP DM2 Perceived burden of DM symptoms and rating of symptom troublesomeness Type 2 Diabetes Symptom Checklisth 14 “significant differences at follow-up for some of the Diabetes Symptom Score dimensions (data not shown). After 14 months, the mean sub-dimension scores for DM symptoms ‘fatigue’ and ‘cognitive distress’ and the total scores were lower in each group, although no difference was observed between the groups.”
 Lung disease
  Hesselink et al., 2004 [26] NL 1 LN Asthma/COPD Respiratory complaints within two weeks after intervention Disturbance (present/absent) for >1 day or night 0.5 “no significant group differences in the number of days or nights disturbed, OR 0.96 (95 % CI 0.56 to 1.61)”
 Common complaints
  Dierick-van Daele et al., 2009 [24] NL 2 NP+ Common complaints Complications due to illness Mean number of days of work absence 0.5 “1.11 days (nurse, SD 0.32; physician, SD 0.31) of work absence in average”
  Dierick-van Daele et al., 2009 [24] NL 2 NP+ Common complaints Complications due illness Mean number of days of inability for daily activities 0.5 “no statistically significant differences between groups; mean days unable for daily activities: nurse-led care 2.53 (SD 2.89), physician-led care 2.69 (SD 2.90)”

Studies are listed in order of increasing length of follow-up, within each category of outcomes

UK: United Kingdom; NL: the Netherlands; ZA: South Africa; RU: Russia; n: number of patients or number of events; N: total number of patients per group; SD: standard deviation; RR: relative risk; WMD: weighted mean difference; CI: confidence intervals; DM(2): diabetes mellitus (type 2); GORD: gastro-esophageal reflux disease; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CHD: coronary heart disease; BPLT: blood pressure lowering treatment; PEF: preserved ejection fraction; MRCQT: Medical Research Council Questionnaire; LikertQT: Likert-type questionnaire; GDSS: Glasgow Dyspepsia Severity Score (Gladys); NYHA: New York Heart Association Functional Classification; ATyPeS: Angina TyPe specification scale

aATyPeS is designed to use with the SF36 questionnaire to assess the presence, frequency and course of chest pain

bPositive changes mean regression of class or stay within class I of NYHA

cMRCQT ranking from 0 (no dyspnea) to 4 (very serious); positive mean values in each group indicate improvement; mean differences with negative values mean a reduction or improvement

dZA1 trial: patients starting ART whose results were available for at least 6 months. ZA2 trial: 76 % and 78 % of the patients in the intervention and control group, respectively, had been receiving ART for at least 2 years at the time of viral load measurements

eThree out of eight possible symptoms, each ranked from 1 (mild) to 5 (very severe). The sum score gave a clinical score from 3 (best state) to 15 (worst)

fLikert-type questionnaire ranking from 0 (excellent) to 10 (poor/worse); mean differences with negative values mean a reduction or improvement

gGDSS (Gladys) ranking from 0 (no symptoms) to 20 (symptoms)

h34-item scale based on yes/no questionnaires for perceived burden of symptoms including hyperglycemic, hypoglycemic, cardiac, neuropathic, psychological and vision-related. Summary responses ranked from 1 (symptom not occurred or not perceived as troublesome) to 5 (symptom extremely troublesome) on Likert-type scale