Yang Lin, Xiang Peng, Pi Guifang, Wen Ting, Liu Li, Liu Dan
Rheumatology and immunology department, The First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, The First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, Hunan, China.
BMJ Open Qual. 2025 Jan 4;14(1):e003037. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003037.
This study sought to assess the effectiveness of nurse-led care (NLC) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
We conducted a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov databases and the references from relevant literature published prior to May 2023. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies using population/intervention/comparison/outcome/study criteria, and quantitative tools were used to gauge the methodological quality of the included studies. Independent quality assessments were carried out using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. Effect sizes were determined using mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% CIs.
Ultimately, 14 articles were included, encompassing a total of 3369 RA patients. NLC exhibited significant advantages in the primary outcome, disease activity (MD =-0.09, 95% CI (-0.17 to -0.01)), and the secondary outcome, self-efficacy (MD=0.40, 95% CI (0.03, 0.77)). In subgroup analysis, NLC was more effective in reducing disease activity compared with usual care (MD=-0.15, 95% CI (-0.26 to -0.04)), and there was no significant difference in disease activity reduction between NLC and rheumatologist-led care (MD=-0.02, 95% CI (-0.14, 0.10)). In terms of self-efficacy, no significant difference was observed between NLC and usual care (SMD=0.56, 95% CI (-0.09, 1.21)) or between NLC and rheumatologist-led care (SMD=0.20, 95% CI (-0.19, 0.59). When comparing other secondary outcomes (pain, satisfaction, quality of life, fatigue, stiffness, physical function and psychological status), the effectiveness of NLC for RA patients was similar to that of the control group, with no statistically significant differences.
NLC proves highly effective in managing RA patients, surpassing usual care and equating to rheumatologist-led care in primary and some secondary outcomes. It may be feasible to allow nurses to participate in the disease management of some RA patients instead of doctors.
CRD42022362071.
本研究旨在评估护士主导的护理(NLC)对类风湿关节炎(RA)患者的有效性。
我们全面检索了Cochrane图书馆、科学网、PubMed、Embase、CINAHL、ClinicalTrials.gov数据库以及2023年5月之前发表的相关文献的参考文献。两名独立评审员使用人群/干预/对照/结局/研究标准对研究进行评估,并使用定量工具来衡量纳入研究的方法学质量。使用Cochrane协作网的偏倚风险工具进行独立的质量评估。效应量使用平均差(MD)或标准化平均差(SMD)及相应的95%置信区间来确定。
最终纳入14篇文章,共涉及3369例RA患者。NLC在主要结局疾病活动度(MD = -0.09,95%CI(-0.17至-0.01))和次要结局自我效能感(MD = 0.40,95%CI(0.03,0.77))方面显示出显著优势。在亚组分析中,与常规护理相比,NLC在降低疾病活动度方面更有效(MD = -0.15,95%CI(-0.26至-0.04)),且NLC与风湿科医生主导的护理在降低疾病活动度方面无显著差异(MD = -0.02,95%CI(-0.14,0.10))。在自我效能感方面,NLC与常规护理之间(SMD = 0.56,95%CI(-0.09,1.21))或NLC与风湿科医生主导护理之间(SMD = 0.20,95%CI(-0.19,0.59))均未观察到显著差异。在比较其他次要结局(疼痛、满意度、生活质量、疲劳、僵硬、身体功能和心理状态)时,NLC对RA患者的有效性与对照组相似,无统计学显著差异。
NLC在管理RA患者方面证明非常有效,在主要结局和一些次要结局方面优于常规护理,等同于风湿科医生主导的护理。允许护士而非医生参与部分RA患者的疾病管理可能是可行之举。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42022362071。