ArticlePloS one2024
Continuity of care in general practice in Norway.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoperative video assessment of rural surgical patients. A prospective cohort study of feasibility, cost and environmental impact.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Less continuity with more complaints: a repeated cross-sectional study of the association between relational continuity of care and patient complaints in English general practice.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Continuity of care and patient-reported experiences in Norwegian general practice: are they linked, and does the measurement of continuity matter?Family practice · 2026Article
- Continuity of Primary Care in Community Health Centers.Annals of family medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of Continuity of Care on Emergency Care and Hospital Admissions Among Patients Receiving Home-Based Care: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Annals of family medicine · 2026Article
- Patient pathways in primary health care - an interview study across various health care personnel in a Canadian and a Norwegian county.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsMaintaining continuity of care between doctors and patients is considered a fundamental aspect of quality in primary healthcare. In this study, we aim to examine continuity in Norway over time by computing two commonly used indicators of continuity: the St Leonard's Index of Continuity of Care (SLICC) and the Usual Provider of Care Index (UPC).
methodWe employ individual-level data, which covers all primary care consultations. This data includes the identities of each patient and physician, and we can identify each patient's regular general practitioner (GP). The SLICC is calculated as the share of consultations conducted by the patient's regular GP annually from 2006 to 2021. Additionally, we identify each patient's most visited physician and compute the UPC as the share of total consultations conducted by the most visited physician during the same period. Our analysis is conducted at the national level and stratified according to the level of centrality, differentiating between areas of high, moderate, and low centrality.
resultsOur findings reveal that, at the national level, SLICC and UPC exhibit remarkable stability, reaching 64 and 71 percent, respectively, in 2021. However, there is significant geographical variation, with the least central areas experiencing less continuous healthcare (SLICC at 49 percent in 2021) than patients residing in more central areas (SLICC at 68 in 2021).
conclusionOur results demonstrate a high degree of continuity that has been stable over time. However, large geographical variations suggest that policymakers should strive to reduce geographical disparities in healthcare quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.