Continuity of care and patient-reported experiences in Norwegian general practice: are they linked, and does the measurement of continuity matter?

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Rebecka Maria Norman, Øyvind Bjertnæs, Katrine Damgaard Skyrud, Rortveit Guri, Steinar Hunskaar
{"title":"Continuity of care and patient-reported experiences in Norwegian general practice: are they linked, and does the measurement of continuity matter?","authors":"Rebecka Maria Norman, Øyvind Bjertnæs, Katrine Damgaard Skyrud, Rortveit Guri, Steinar Hunskaar","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmag025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuity of care has been associated with improved health and healthcare outcomes. Continuity can be measured using registry-based and patient-reported measures, but how these measures relate to patient-reported experiences is less well understood. The main aim was to assess the association between continuity of care and patient-reported experiences in Norwegian general practice, using registry-based and self-reported measures. A secondary aim was to compare the two continuity measures and examine their agreement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was conducted combining data from a national survey of patient-reported experiences with individual-level registry data on general practitioner (GP) consultations. Continuity of care was measured using a self-reported indicator of normally seeing one's own GP and a registry-based Usual Provider of Care (UPC) index. Associations with patient-reported experience scale scores were analysed using adjusted linear regression. Agreement between registry-based and self-reported continuity were examined by comparing their distributions and associations within the same study sample.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both registry-based and self-reported continuity were positively associated with higher patient-reported experience scores across all scales (P < 0.001), with stronger associations for self-reported continuity. Associations were stronger among patients with long-term conditions. Agreement between registry-based and self-reported continuity was moderate and asymmetrical: most patients with high registry-based continuity reported seeing their own GP, whereas patients with low registry-based continuity were almost equally likely to report seeing their own GP or other GPs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings underline the importance of continuity of care in general practice. Registry-based and self-reported continuity measures capture related but non-interchangeable aspects of continuity and provide complementary information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":"43 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13168889/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmag025","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Continuity of care has been associated with improved health and healthcare outcomes. Continuity can be measured using registry-based and patient-reported measures, but how these measures relate to patient-reported experiences is less well understood. The main aim was to assess the association between continuity of care and patient-reported experiences in Norwegian general practice, using registry-based and self-reported measures. A secondary aim was to compare the two continuity measures and examine their agreement.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted combining data from a national survey of patient-reported experiences with individual-level registry data on general practitioner (GP) consultations. Continuity of care was measured using a self-reported indicator of normally seeing one's own GP and a registry-based Usual Provider of Care (UPC) index. Associations with patient-reported experience scale scores were analysed using adjusted linear regression. Agreement between registry-based and self-reported continuity were examined by comparing their distributions and associations within the same study sample.

Results: Both registry-based and self-reported continuity were positively associated with higher patient-reported experience scores across all scales (P < 0.001), with stronger associations for self-reported continuity. Associations were stronger among patients with long-term conditions. Agreement between registry-based and self-reported continuity was moderate and asymmetrical: most patients with high registry-based continuity reported seeing their own GP, whereas patients with low registry-based continuity were almost equally likely to report seeing their own GP or other GPs.

Conclusions: The findings underline the importance of continuity of care in general practice. Registry-based and self-reported continuity measures capture related but non-interchangeable aspects of continuity and provide complementary information.

挪威全科实践中护理的连续性和患者报告的经验:它们是否相关,连续性的测量是否重要?
背景:护理的连续性与健康和保健结果的改善有关。连续性可以使用基于登记和患者报告的措施来衡量,但这些措施与患者报告的经历之间的关系尚不清楚。主要目的是评估挪威全科实践中护理连续性和患者报告经验之间的关系,采用基于登记和自我报告的措施。第二个目的是比较两种连续性措施并审查它们是否一致。方法:一项横断面研究将来自全国患者报告经验调查的数据与全科医生(GP)咨询的个人水平注册数据相结合。使用自我报告的正常看全科医生的指标和基于注册的常规护理提供者(UPC)指数来衡量护理的连续性。使用调整后的线性回归分析与患者报告的经验量表得分的关系。通过比较其在同一研究样本中的分布和关联来检验基于注册表和自我报告的连续性之间的一致性。结果:基于注册表的连续性和自我报告的连续性在所有量表上都与较高的患者报告的经验得分呈正相关(P < 0.001),与自我报告的连续性有更强的关联。长期疾病患者的相关性更强。基于登记的连续性和自我报告的连续性之间的一致性是中等和不对称的:大多数基于登记的连续性高的患者报告看了自己的全科医生,而基于登记的连续性低的患者几乎同样可能报告看了自己的全科医生或其他全科医生。结论:研究结果强调了全科实践中护理连续性的重要性。基于注册表和自我报告的连续性措施捕获了连续性的相关但不可互换的方面,并提供了补充信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书