ArticleBMC medicine2025
Chronic care provision in general practices and association with patient level outcomes: a nationwide cohort study.
Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Incidence, survival, and prevalence trends for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and cancer across Swedish birth cohorts: a population-based register study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practice provides long-term care for most people living with long-term conditions, but the impact of generic chronic care provision on patient outcomes has not been examined on a national level. We aimed to investigate whether the provision of chronic care services in general practice is associated with potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potentially preventable hospitalisations in listed patients.
methodsNationwide cohort study using linked health registry data covering 4.42 million patients (18 + years) listed with general practices in Denmark in 2019 (n = 1769). The exposure was the patient's practice listing. Practices were grouped evenly into low, medium, or high level of service provision (chronic care consultations, chronic care procedures, and daytime consultations) after adjustment for patient case-mix and multimorbidity. Sub-group analyses were based on list size, morbidity load, deprivation score, and urbanisation. The outcomes at patient level were number of patient days with PIMs (modified STOPP-START criteria) and number of potentially preventable hospitalisations.
resultsIn practices providing high levels of chronic care consultations, the listed patients had a 1.2% lower risk of PIMs compared to the medium-level group (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.988, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.977 to 0.999, corresponding to 3600 fewer patient years of PIMs per year) and an IRR of 0.964 (95% CI 0.927 to 1.002) for potentially preventable hospitalisations. In practices providing high levels of chronic care procedures, patients had a 1.7% lower risk of PIMs (IRR 0.983, 95% CI 0.972 to 0.993, 5500 fewer patient years of PIMs) and an 8.6% lower risk of potentially preventable hospitalisations (IRR 0.914, 95% CI 0.879 to 0.950, 3700 fewer potentially preventable hospitalisations per year). High levels of daytime consultations were associated with higher risk of PIMs, but not with potentially preventable hospitalisations. We found an inverse dose-response relationship between chronic care provision and adverse outcomes. The findings were stable between different practice characteristics and patient populations.
conclusionsPatients experienced fewer potentially inappropriate medications and potentially preventable hospitalisations if listed at a general practice with high chronic care provision, regardless of other practice characteristics.
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.