Table 6 Patient-reported outcomes and experiences

Desmeules et al., 2013 [20]

Patient satisfaction significantly higher for the APP (93.2%, SD 13.5) than for the OS (86.1%, SD 23.3). MD 7.1 (95% CI 3.5 to 10.7; p < 0.001).

Daker-White et al., 1999 [23]

No significant differences between the groups. MD −3.3 (95% CI −8.9 to 2.5)

No significant differences between the groups. MD 2.7 (95% CI −1.7 to 7.2)

No significant differences between the groups. Thermometer score EQ. 5D 2.3 (95% CI − 2.2 to 6.7).

No significant differences between the groups. Anxiety: MD − 0.4 (95% CI − 1.0 to 0.4).

No significant differences between the groups. Health state score EQ. 5D 0.0 (95% CI − 0.1 to 0.1)

Patient dissatisfaction significantly lower in PT group, mean 28.0 (SEM 0.6), vs OS mean 31.0 (SEM 0.7) MD 3.0 (95% CI 1.3 to 4.9). Scale ranging 13–65, with 12 indicating greatest satisfaction.

Lowry et al., 2020 [69]

Patient satisfaction measured with the 9-item Visit-Specific Satisfaction Questionnaire was high, with no significant differences found between providers; 87.8 (SD 16.6) for the APP vs 86.9 (SD 19.1) for the OS (p = 0.697).

Napier et al., 2013 [66]

100% (45/45) of patients reported being satisfied or “very satisfied” (score 5) with overall care received from the PT

(mean 4.87, range 4–5); 98% (44/45) reported being

“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with advice/

education received from the PT (mean 4.67, range 3–5).

Oldmeadow et al., 2007 [19]

79% of patients reported being satisfied or very satisfied” with care they received from the PT.

screening clinic (mean 1.4; range 1–4).

Razmjou et al., 2013 [72]

Measured with the Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument.

Mean of total score was 649 (SD 71) for the APP and 606 (SD 103) for the OS (p = 0.004). For each question a significant difference in favour of the APP-led clinic.

Samsson et al., 2014 (I), 2015 (III), 2016 (II) [24, 58, 57]

No significant differences between the groups at 3, 6, 12 months. OR 3 m 0.8 (95% CI 0.0 to 21.1); 6 m 0.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 2.1); 12 m 0.7 (95% CI 0.0 to 16.5)

No significant differences between the groups at 3, 6, 12 months on PDI. Range OR 3 m 1.0 to 1.8, 6 m 1.4 to 2.0, 12 m 1.1 to 1.5

Significantly better health-state (EQ VAS) at 3 months after PT triage (mean difference − 5.7 (95% CI −11.1 to −0.2; p = 0.04)

No significant differences between the groups at 3,6, 12 months. Anxiety: OR 3 m 0.9 (95% CI 0.3 to 3.1); 6 m 1.9 (95% CI 0.5 to 8.1); 12 m 1.6 (95% CI 0.5 to 5.2)

No significant differences between the groups at 3, 6, 12 months on EQ. 5D. Range OR 3 m 0.8 to 1.8; 6 m 0.9 to 4.6; 12 m 0.7 to 1.8

No significant differences; 7 patients in the PT group, mean days 146 (SD 128), 15 patients in the OS group, mean days 72 (SD 81) (p = 0.113)

Measured with the Quality from the Patient’s Perspective; “do not agree at all” to “completely agree” (score 4). Significantly higher perceived quality of care after PT triage compared with OS with regard to receiving best possible examination and treatment, mean 3.5 (Q1 3; Q3 4) vs 2.9 (Q1 2; Q3 4) (p < 0.001), as well as information about examination and treatment, mean 3.6 (Q1 3; Q3 4) vs 3.0 (Q1 2; Q3 4) (p < 0.001), results, mean 3.4 (Q1 3; Q3 4) vs 2.7 (Q1 2; Q3 4) (p < 0.001), self-care, mean 3.5 (Q1 3; Q3 4) vs 2.9 (Q1 2; Q3 4) (p < 0.001), caregivers’ understanding, mean 3.8 (Q1 4; Q3 4) vs 3.1 (Q1 2.5; Q3 4) (p < 0.001), respect, mean 3.9 (Q1 4; Q3 4) vs 3.4 (Q1 3; Q3 4) (p < 0.001), commitment, mean 3.9 (Q1 4; Q3 4) vs 3.0 (Q1 2; Q3 4) (p < 0.001), and participation in decision-making, mean 3.6 (Q1 3; Q3 4) vs 3.2 (Q1 3; Q3 4) (p = 0.01).

Expectations were met to a significantly higher extent after PT triage, mean 4.3 (Q1 4; Q3 5) vs 3.7 (Q1 3; Q3 4) for OS (p < 0.001), ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a very large extent).

Intention to follow advice and instructions received was significantly greater after PT triage, mean 2.8 (Q1 3; Q3 3) vs 2.6 (Q1 2; Q3 3) for OS (p = 0.019), ranging from 1 (no) to 3 (yes completely).