Anthony, Bethany F, Surgey, Alun, Hiscock, Julia et al. · The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019 · DOI
This review looked at whether nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals can provide medical care more cheaply than doctors in primary care settings. The researchers found very limited evidence about costs and outcomes, with some nurse-led care for minor problems being cost-effective, but nurse-led care for chronic fatigue syndrome was not cost-effective compared to doctor care.
For ME/CFS patients, this study is important because it directly examined the cost-effectiveness of nurse-led care for chronic fatigue syndrome and found it was not cost-effective compared to GP care, suggesting that task substitution may not be an effective or economical approach for managing this complex condition. Understanding the evidence base for different service delivery models can inform how healthcare systems allocate resources to ME/CFS care.
This systematic review does not prove that nurse-led care for CFS is ineffective in clinical outcomes—only that economic analyses suggested it was not cost-effective. The finding is based on limited evidence (likely only one or two studies), so conclusions about CFS care delivery models should be interpreted cautiously. The review also cannot establish optimal service models for ME/CFS since it was not designed to assess clinical efficacy or patient outcomes.
About the PEM badge: “PEM required” means post-exertional malaise was an explicit required diagnostic criterion for participant inclusion in this study — not that PEM was studied, observed, or discussed. Studies using criteria that do not require PEM (e.g. Fukuda, Oxford) are tagged “PEM not required”. How the atlas works →
Spotted an error in this entry? Report it →