Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23205040›Full record

ArticleHealthcare policy = Politiques de sante2011

Relational continuity from the patient perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments.

Frederick Burge, Jeannie L Haggerty, Raynald Pineault, Marie-Dominique Beaulieu, Jean-Frédéric Lévesque, Christine Beaulieu, Darcy A Santor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Measuring Trust in Primary Care.The Milbank quarterly · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Performance of an integrated network model: Evaluation of the first 4 years.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2016
    Article
  18. Providing continuity of care to a specific population: Attracting new family physicians.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2016
    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.

Frederick BurgeDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.
Jeannie L Haggerty
Raynald Pineault
Marie-Dominique Beaulieu
Jean-Frédéric Lévesque
Christine Beaulieu
Darcy A Santor

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe operational definition of relational continuity is "a therapeutic relationship between a patient and one or more providers that spans various healthcare events and results in accumulated knowledge of the patient and care consistent with the patient's needs."

objectiveTo examine how well relational continuity is measured in validated instruments that evaluate primary healthcare from the patient's perspective.

method645 adults with at least one healthcare contact in the previous 12 months responded to six instruments that evaluate primary healthcare. Five subscales map to relational continuity: the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS, two subscales), the Primary Care Assessment Tool - Short Form (PCAT-S) and the Components of Primary Care Index (CPCI, two subscales). Scores were normalized for descriptive comparison. Exploratory and confirmatory (structural equation modelling) factor analysis examined fit to operational definition, and item response theory analysis examined item performance on common constructs.

resultsAll subscales load reasonably well on a single factor, presumed to be relational continuity, but the best model has two underlying factors corresponding to (1) accumulated knowledge of the patient and (2) relationship that spans healthcare events. Some items were problematic even in the best model. The PCAS Contextual Knowledge subscale discriminates best between different levels of accumulated knowledge, but this dimension is also captured well by the CPCI Accumulated Knowledge subscale and most items in the PCAT-S Ongoing Care subscale. For relationship-spanning events, the items' content captures concentration of care in one doctor; this is captured best by the CPCI Preference for Regular Provider subscale and, to a lesser extent, by the PCAS Visit-Based Continuity subscale and one relevant item in the PCAT-S Ongoing Care subscale. But this dimension correlates only modestly with percentage of reported visits to the personal doctor. The items function as yes/no rather than ordinal options, and are especially informative for poor concentration of care.

conclusionThese subscales perform well for key elements of relational continuity, but do not capture consistency of care. They are more informative for poor relational continuity.

Identifiers

PMID23205040
PMCPMC3399435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.