{"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.
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.