INTRODUCTION:
the global utilization of physician assistants in primary care is growing in response to rising demand and general practitioner shortages. Physician assistants may deliver comparable primary care relative to general practitioners, and potentially at lower costs. The aim of this rapid review is to summarize studies that have conducted a cost-consequence analysis comparing physician assistants to general practitioner-delivered primary care, urgent care, and emergency care.

METHODS:
eligible studies evaluate the costs of physician assistants in primary care compared to general practitioners, and report at least one consequence outcome (emergency department use, hospitalisations/admissions, visit frequency, and/or continuity of care). Included studies are published in peer-reviewed journals within the past 10 years, use a comparative quantitative evaluation design, and are written in english. Searches are being conducted in PubMed and EconLit, supplemented by backward and forward citation screening. Records are being managed in Covidence for tracking decisions.

RESULTS:
the search strategy has produced 309 studies before screening, following the removal of duplicates. Study characteristics, comparators, cost details, and consequences will be synthesized narratively by outcome domain. Screening and extraction are currently underway, with full results available in september 2026.

CONCLUSIONS:
this rapid review will provide timely economic evidence on whether physician assistants can deliver comparable primary care outcomes relative to general practitioners, while potentially reducing costs and avoidable health service use. Findings will inform policy decisions on primary care workforce planning and resource allocation across international health systems.