Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22860100›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2012

Measurement properties of questionnaires measuring continuity of care: a systematic review.

Annemarie A Uijen, Claire W Heinst, Francois G Schellevis, Wil J H M van den Bosch, Floris A van de Laar, Caroline B Terwee, Henk J Schers

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with foot or ankle diseases.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. The measurement properties of the IKDC-subjective knee form.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2015
    Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Moving forward, leaving the patients behind? A multilevel assessment framework for evaluating patient-centred, integrated care quality.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Which methods are most practicable for measuring continuity within general practices?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Annemarie A UijenRadboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. A.Uijen@elg.umcn.nl
Claire W Heinst
Francois G Schellevis
Wil J H M van den Bosch
Floris A van de Laar
Caroline B Terwee
Henk J Schers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuity of care is widely acknowledged as a core value in family medicine. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify the instruments measuring continuity of care and to assess the quality of their measurement properties.

methodsWe did a systematic review using the PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases, with an extensive search strategy including 'continuity of care', 'coordination of care', 'integration of care', 'patient centered care', 'case management' and its linguistic variations. We searched from 1995 to October 2011 and included articles describing the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of instruments measuring one or more dimensions of continuity of care (1) care from the same provider who knows and follows the patient (personal continuity), (2) communication and cooperation between care providers in one care setting (team continuity), and (3) communication and cooperation between care providers in different care settings (cross-boundary continuity). We assessed the methodological quality of the measurement properties of each instrument using the COSMIN checklist.

resultsWe included 24 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 21 instruments. Ten instruments measured all three dimensions of continuity of care. Instruments were developed for different groups of patients or providers. For most instruments, three or four of the six measurement properties were assessed (mostly internal consistency, content validity, structural validity and construct validity). Six instruments scored positive on the quality of at least three of six measurement properties.

conclusionsMost included instruments have problems with either the number or quality of its assessed measurement properties or the ability to measure all three dimensions of continuity of care. Based on the results of this review, we recommend the use of one of the four most promising instruments, depending on the target population Diabetes Continuity of Care Questionnaire, Alberta Continuity of Services Scale-Mental Health, Heart Continuity of Care Questionnaire, and Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID22860100
PMCPMC3409169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.