ArticleFamily practice2026
Continuity of care and patient-reported experiences in Norwegian general practice: are they linked, and does the measurement of continuity matter?
Article in Family practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContinuity 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsBoth 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
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.