ArticleBMC primary care2026
How relational continuity shapes recommended chronic disease management: analysis of population-based administrative health data in British Columbia.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRelational continuity, or the ongoing therapeutic relationship between patient and clinician, has been associated with improved outcomes among people with chronic disease and emphasized in primary care policy. It has not yet been studied how relational continuity shapes recommended chronic disease management and whether this relationship is modified by patient complexity.
methodsWe used linked administrative health data to conduct a retrospective, population-based cohort study among residents of British Columbia, Canada with diabetes and/or hypertension between April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2023. Modified-Poisson regression models were used to calculate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) between relational continuity and a composite outcome of recommended management (including monitoring and prescribing for diabetes or hypertension) and included interaction terms to examine subgroup-specific associations among those treated for serious mental illness, substance use disorder, or with a higher overall burden of comorbidity.
resultsCompared to those with low relational continuity, those with complete relational continuity had slightly more recommended management for both diabetes (20.4% vs. 19.2%) and hypertension (28.4% vs. 26.8%). However, when adjusting for other patient characteristics, there was a null association between relational continuity and recommended management overall (aRR: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99 to 1.01). We note significant inverse associations among those treated for serious mental illness (SMI) or with high comorbidity, particularly with high primary care use (12 + visits and SMI aRR: 0.64 [0.52-0.80]; 12 + visits and Charlson comorbidity score > 1 aRR: 0.91 (0.86-0.96)]).
conclusionsRelational continuity was not associated with recommended chronic disease management processes. Inverse associations observed among patient subgroups with more complex needs suggests that emphasis on visit-based measures of relational continuity has been ineffective at facilitating complex care. Improving other aspects of continuity, like management and informational continuity, may be important to providing comprehensive and equitable primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42902172What 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.