Continuity in different care modes and its relationship to quality of life: a randomised controlled trial in patients with COPD

Annemarie A Uijen; Erik WMA Bischoff; Francois G Schellevis; Hans HJ Bor; Wil JHM van den Bosch; Henk J Schers

doi:10.3399/bjgp12X649115

Abstract

Background New care modes in primary care may affect patients’ experienced continuity of care.

Aim To analyse whether experienced continuity for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) changes after different care modes are introduced, and to analyse the relationship between continuity of care and patients’ quality of life.

Design and setting Randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up in general practice in the Netherlands.

Method A total of 180 patients with COPD were randomly assigned to three different care modes: self-management, regular monitoring by a practice nurse, and care provided by the GP at the patient's own initiative (usual care). Experienced continuity of care as personal continuity (proportion of visits with patient's own GP) and team continuity (continuity by the primary healthcare team) was measured using a self-administered patient questionnaire. Quality of life was measured using the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire.

Results Of the final sample (n = 148), those patients receiving usual care experienced the highest personal continuity, although the chance of not contacting any care provider was also highest in this group (29% versus 2% receiving self-management, and 5% receiving regular monitoring). There were no differences in experienced team continuity in the three care modes. No relationship was found between continuity and changes in quality of life.

Conclusion Although personal continuity decreases when new care modes are introduced, no evidence that this affects patients’ experienced team continuity or patients’ quality of life was found. Patients still experienced smooth, ongoing care, and considered care to be connected. Overall, no evidence was found indicating that the introduction of new care modes in primary care for patients with COPD should be discouraged.

INTRODUCTION

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is highly prevalent and one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide.1 Its prevalence is predicted to rise in the coming decades, which will result in an increased burden on healthcare systems.1,2

In primary care, new care modes are being introduced to improve quality and to cope with the increased workload of COPD in primary care globally. Practice nurses take over elements of COPD care and self-management programmes are introduced to increase patients’ self-care. There are concerns that the introduction of these new care modes may be a threat to patients’ experienced continuity in primary care, both in terms of personal continuity (seeing the same care provider) and team continuity (continuity by the primary healthcare team). Other studies have shown that decreased personal continuity is related to less confidence in care providers3,4 and less satisfaction with care.4–6 Moreover, patients’ adherence to treatment and prevention might decrease.7 The evidence is still inconclusive as to whether decreased levels of continuity are also related to reduced quality of life.8–11

In this study the experienced continuity of care of patients with COPD who were receiving different modes of care was compared. This was done to ascertain whether the level of experienced personal and team continuity of patients with COPD changes after the introduction of a self-management intervention or regular monitoring by a practice nurse, compared with usual GP care at the patient's own initiative. It was hypothesised that experienced personal and team continuity would decrease when receiving self-management or regular monitoring, compared with usual care, because patients contact an additional care provider and more care providers have to communicate and collaborate. The relationship between experienced continuity of care and quality of life was also examined.

METHOD

Design

In The Netherlands, patients with COPD are primarily treated in primary care. GPs act as gatekeepers to secondary care. This study was embedded in a 24-month, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled trial comparing three care modes for patients with COPD in primary care. The study is powered on the primary study outcome, which was quality of life. This article focuses on continuity of care as the outcome measure. The randomised controlled trial has been registered in the international clinical trial register, ClinicalTrial.gov (Identifier NCT00128765).

Participants

Between June 2004 and November 2006 15 general practices from the Nijmegen region (10 general practices of the academic network of the Department of Primary and Community Care of the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre and five additional general practices from the Nijmegen/Achterhoek region) selected patients aged ≥35 years, who were considered to have COPD, based on recorded International Classification of Primary Care codes R95/R91, diagnostic labels, and prescription records for respiratory medication (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code R03). GPs excluded patients who:

had severe comorbid conditions with a reduced life expectancy;
were unable to communicate in Dutch;
obtained care by a lung specialist at baseline; or
should, according to the GP, not be included in the study for other reasons.

How this fits in

There are concerns that the introduction of a practice nurse or a self-management programme for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be a threat to patients’ experienced continuity of care. However, when introducing these new care modes, patients are more likely to be reviewed frequently, which is advised in several guidelines. Moreover, patients still experience their care to be smooth, ongoing and connected. Overall, this study found no evidence that the newly introduced care modes have a negative impact on patients with COPD.

GPs invited selected patients to their general practice for an intake visit. During this visit pre- and post-bronchodilator lung function was measured. All patients who fulfilled the following inclusion criteria were asked to participate in the study:

post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC)<0.7, according to the Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria — COPD is diagnosed below this threshold;12 and
post-bronchodilator FEV1≥30% predicted.

Patients were excluded if they had objections to more than one of the disease management modes in the study.

Before the start of the study all patients received usual GP care. After signed, informed consent was given, patients were allocated to one of the three study arms using a computer-generated, two-block randomisation procedure with stratification on COPD severity according to GOLD classification (mild or moderate versus severe), smoking status (current versus former smoker), and exacerbation frequency in the previous 24 months (<2 versus ≥2 exacerbations). All investigators were blinded for individual treatment allocation.

Interventions

Usual care

Patients received care at their own initiative, provided by their GP. Most patients visited their GP only when symptoms were aggravated.

Self-management as an adjunct to usual care

A Dutch translation of the Canadian COPD-specific self-management programme Living Well with COPD was provided to all patients in this group.13 The programme consisted of the following topics: COPD disease knowledge; use of medication and breathing techniques; managing exacerbations; maintaining a healthy lifestyle; managing stress and anxiety; and home exercise. Using motivational interviewing techniques, the practice nurses of each practice gave the programme to patients in four individual sessions of 60 minutes each. During the 2-year follow-up, the practice nurses followed up with the patients with telephone calls to reinforce the intended behaviour changes. In case of an exacerbation, patients contacted their GP.

Regular monitoring as an adjunct to usual care

Patients were invited to participate in structured controls by the practice nurse and the GP. The frequency of these provider-initiated visits (minimum twice a year, maximum four times a year, of which one was a GP visit) depended on the severity of both airflow obstruction and dyspnoea. The content of the monitoring programme was based on national and international COPD guidelines14,15 and included spirometry, inhalation instructions, and assessment of dyspnoea and quality of life. In case of an exacerbation, patients contacted their GP.

Outcome and measurements

All patients visited the lung-function department of the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre at baseline, 1 year, and 2 years for spirometry and an assessment of demographic characteristics, smoking history, and continuity of care.

Continuity of care

Continuity of care was defined as a three-dimensional concept including personal continuity from the same care provider, team continuity from the primary care team, and cross-boundary continuity across primary–secondary care settings.16 Cross-boundary continuity was not measured as patients were excluded when treated by a lung specialist.

Personal continuity was measured using the Usual Provider of Continuity (UPC) index,18 which measures the proportion of visits with the usual care provider, that is the GP. The UPC index was calculated for each patient as:

The score of the UPC index varies between 0 (low personal continuity) and 1 (high personal continuity). A patient questionnaire was used at 1 year and 2 years after baseline to obtain the number of visits during the last year that were used to calculate the UPC index.

Team continuity was then measured using a questionnaire including the following six items on team continuity:

the treatment of my lung disease in primary care goes smoothly;
the care of the different providers in primary care for my lung disease is connected;
the care providers in primary care often give me contradictory advice about my lung disease;
the care providers in primary care involved in the care for my lung disease communicate well with each other;
the care providers in primary care involved in the care for my lung disease have knowledge of my medical record; and
the care providers in primary care involved in the care for my lung disease have knowledge of previous visits.

This questionnaire, based on 30 patient interviews that were conducted as part of a study on continuity of care,19 was tested among six GPs/senior researchers and eight patients (content validity) to make sure that no significant items were missing and that all items were understood correctly. After this testing was done, minor changes to the questionnaire were made. Responses were to be recorded on a five-point scale (1 = never, 5 = always). The questionnaire was tested on a sample of Dutch patients with COPD, heart failure, or a mental illness; principal factor analysis was subsequently performed, which confirmed this presumed factor (construct validity).

Quality of life

Disease-specific health-related quality of life was measured with the self-administered Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ).20 This instrument consists of 20 questions that are scored on a seven-point Likert-scale. The minimal clinically important difference of the CRQ has been established at 0.5 points.21 The CRQ was assessed at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months.

Analysis

Patient and disease characteristics were calculated and compared between the three groups using analysis of variance and χ2 tests; a P-value of <0.05 determined statistical significance. The UPC index was calculated over the total 2 years of the study; however, if data on the second year were missing the UPC index over the first year was calculated.

The answers on the items measuring team continuity at baseline were described, then the total score of team continuity in the three care modes at baseline, after 1 year, and after 2 years calculated and compared. If ≥3 or more questions on team continuity were missing from a case, that case was excluded. All remaining missing values were imputed by patient's mean. The answers on the negatively keyed question were recoded.

A general linear model was used to compare the UPC index between the three care modes and to assess the difference in team continuity score between baseline and 1 year, and between baseline and 2 years between the three care modes. In this model, care mode was included and controlled for age, sex, GOLD stage, and existence of comorbidity (cancer, heart failure, and anxiety and/or depression).

The relationship between continuity of care and quality of life was analysed; the difference between CRQ score (ΔCRQ) at baseline and in the second trial year (mean score measured at 18 and 24 months) was calculated. Differences in ΔCRQ in different levels of personal and team continuity were examined, and the Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) of ΔCRQ and personal and team continuity were calculated.

Data including and excluding patients who reported that they did not see any care provider in primary care in the last year were analysed. As the results of these two analyses did not differ, this article presents the analyses including these patients’ data. SPSS (version 16.0) was used for all statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Patient selection

A sample of 180 patients was randomly assigned to the three care modes (Figure 1). After 2 years, 148 patients had completed the study. The overall drop-out rate was 18%; reasons for drop-out were consent withdrawal, miscellaneous medical conditions, and loss to follow-up, and were comparable between the three study groups. Patients who dropped out did not statistically significantly differ in age (P = 0.94), sex (P = 0.91), post-bronchodilator FEV1 (P = 0.295), or CRQ score (P = 0.06) from patients who did not drop out.

Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Patient characteristics

At baseline, patients’ mean age was 64.5 years and 63% were male. In total, 18% of patients were classified as being in GOLD stage I, 64% in GOLD stage II, and 18% in GOLD stage III or IV. A breakdown of patient characteristics by care mode is given in Table 1.

View this table:

Table 1

Patient characteristics at baseline

Personal continuity

Of 24 (17%) patients, data on the second trial year were missing, so the UPC index of these patients was calculated over the first year. Data on both the first and second trial year were missing of 24 patients. Table 2 shows the estimated marginal means (controlled for age, sex, GOLD stage, and existence of comorbidity) of the UPC score during the trial in the different study groups. Personal continuity was significantly higher for patients receiving usual care compared with patients in the other care modes: the mean UPC score was 0.74 for patients receiving usual care, compared with 0.50 for those receiving regular monitoring and 0.36 for patients who were self-managing. The UPC index was >0.80 in 44% of the patients in the usual care group, compared with 23% of those receiving regular monitoring and 6% of those self-managing.

View this table:

Table 2

Mean score of personal continuity and difference in team continuity in the different study groups

In the usual care group, 13/45 (29%) patients did not contact any care provider at all for their COPD during the study (UPC index was missing), compared with one (2%) patient who was self-managing, and 3/60 (5%) patients who received regular monitoring.

Team continuity

At baseline, most patients scored high on the items measuring team continuity (Table 3). No great differences were seen in the team continuity scores at baseline among the three care modes (P = 0.693) and, after 1 and 2 years, no clear differences in the score of team continuity were seen at group level (Table 4). Most patients showed no or only small differences (0–2 points) in experienced team continuity after 1 year; these differences seemed to become even smaller after 2 years. Patients in the usual care group show the smallest difference in team continuity (data not shown).

View this table:

Table 3

Experienced team continuity in primary care at baseline (n = 162)

View this table:

Table 4

Total score of experienced team continuity in general practice in the three care modes at baseline, after 1 year, and after 2 years

Continuity and quality of life

Table 5 shows the relationship between continuity of care and changes in quality of life. No clinically relevant difference in CRQ score (>0.50) was seen for different UPC scores. Pearson's correlation coefficient of ΔCRQ and personal continuity was 0.117. A slightly higher quality of life was found after 2 years when the UPC score exceeded 0.60, however this difference was not clinically relevant. The experienced quality of life did not change for patients who saw no care provider at all during the trial; in addition no clinically relevant difference was found between different levels of team continuity and quality of life. Pearson's correlation coefficient of ΔCRQ and team continuity was –0.041.

View this table:

Table 5

Changes in CRQ score between baseline and the second trial year in different continuity classes

DISCUSSION

Summary

Although personal continuity — that is, the proportion of visits with patient's own GP — was found to be highest when receiving usual care and lowest when self-managing (which would be expected from the organisation of the care modes), in contrast to this study's hypothesis, no differences in experienced team continuity in primary care among the three care modes were found. Patients in all three care modes, independent of the number of care providers seen, felt that their care went smoothly, was connected, and that care providers communicated well and knew them.

Although the proportion of visits with the patient's own GP was highest when receiving usual care, it was found that the chance of not contacting any care provider at all was also highest in this care mode (almost 30%). There was no evidence that a decreasing (personal) continuity affects patients’ quality of life.

Strengths and limitations

One limitation to be aware of is that the study is powered on the quality-of-life outcome measure and not on continuity of care. It could be that too few patients were included to find differences in experienced team continuity.

Another limitation is the high level of experienced team continuity at baseline, which makes it difficult to show an increase in team continuity during the study. However, as it was hypothesised that the experienced continuity would decrease when patients were self-managing or receiving regular monitoring because they need to contact an additional care provider in these care modes, it is not thought that this limitation negatively influenced these results.

A considerable number of patients saw no care provider at all for their COPD during the trial, especially in the group of patients receiving usual care. Some of these, however, did answer the questions about team continuity, which can make the reliability of the answers doubtful. Data including and excluding patients who reported that they did see any care provider for their COPD were analysed; the results of these two analyses did not differ.

Many patients thought to have COPD did not participate in the trial, which could lower the generalisability of the results. However, the age, sex, and severity of COPD (according to the GOLD stage) of those patients who were included are comparable with the same characteristics of primary care patients with COPD who have participated in other studies.22,23 To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study analysing changes in experienced personal and team continuity after the introduction of new care modes.

Comparison with existing literature

The relationship between continuity of care and quality of life has been investigated in previous studies. Chien et al9 also found no relationship between the UPC index and quality of life, but Hanninen et al10 found a positive correlation between seeing the same GP for at least 2 years and quality of life in patients with diabetes. Adair et al8 and King et al11 investigated the relationship between a multidimensional definition of continuity of care and quality of life: King et al performed a cross-sectional study in patients with cancer and found no relationship, whereas Adair et al performed a prospective study in patients with severe mental illness and found a positive relationship between continuity and quality of life.

Implications for practice

Regular monitoring by a practice nurse and self-management are increasingly introduced in primary care to anticipate the growing load of this chronic disease in primary care. As patients contact an additional care provider (practice nurse) in these new care modes, they experience less personal continuity. However, as guidelines advise the review of patients with COPD regularly to provide high levels of quality of care,14,15 these new care modes reduce the chance of not being reviewed at all. Although patients contact an additional care provider, they still experience that their care goes smoothly, is connected, and that care providers communicate well and know their patients. Overall, no evidence was found that the newly introduced care modes have a negative impact on patients with COPD.

Notes

Funding

None.

Ethical approval

Medical Ethics Committee of the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article on the Discussion Forum: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/bjgp-discuss

Received October 15, 2011.
Revision received November 14, 2011.
Accepted December 14, 2011.

REFERENCES

↵
1. Mannino DM,
2. Buist AS
(2007) Global burden of COPD: risk factors, prevalence, and future trends. Lancet 370(9589):765–773.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
↵
1. Rabe KF,
2. Beghe B,
3. Luppi F,
4. Fabbri LM
(2007) Update in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 2006. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 175(12):1222–1232.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
↵
1. Heller KS,
2. Solomon MZ
(2005) Continuity of care and caring: what matters to parents of children with life-threatening conditions. J Pediatr Nurs 20(5):335–346.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
↵
1. Schers H,
2. van den Hoogen H,
3. Bor H,
4. et al.
(2005) Familiarity with a GP and patients’ evaluations of care. A cross-sectional study. Fam Pract 22(1):15–19.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
1. Hjortdahl P,
2. Laerum E
(1992) Continuity of care in general practice: effect on patient satisfaction. BMJ 304(6837):1287–1290.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
1. Saultz JW,
2. Albedaiwi W
(2004) Interpersonal continuity of care and patient satisfaction: a critical review. Ann Fam Med 2(5):445–451.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
1. Gray DP,
2. Evans P,
3. Sweeney K,
4. et al.
(2003) Towards a theory of continuity of care. J R Soc Med 96(4):160–166.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
↵
1. Adair CE,
2. McDougall GM,
3. Mitton CR,
4. et al.
(2005) Continuity of care and health outcomes among persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 56(9):1061–1069.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
↵
1. Chien CF,
2. Steinwachs DM,
3. Lehman A,
4. et al.
(2000) Provider continuity and outcomes of care for persons with schizophrenia. Ment Health Serv Res 2(4):201–211.
OpenUrl CrossRef
↵
1. Hanninen J,
2. Takala J,
3. Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi S
(2001) Good continuity of care may improve quality of life in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 51(1):21–27.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
↵
1. King M,
2. Jones L,
3. Richardson A,
4. et al.
(2008) The relationship between patients’ experiences of continuity of cancer care and health outcomes: a mixed methods study. Br J Cancer 98(3):529–536.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
↵
1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease
Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (updated 2010), http://www.goldcopd.org/uploads/users/files/GOLDReport_April112011.pdf (accessed 4 Apr 2012).
↵
1. Bourbeau J,
2. Julien M,
3. Maltais F,
4. et al.
(2003) Reduction of hospital utilization in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a disease-specific self-management intervention. Arch Intern Med 163(5):585–591.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
↵
1. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions
(2004) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. National clinical guideline on management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults in primary and secondary care. Thorax 59(Suppl 1):1–232.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
↵
1. Smeele IJM,
2. van Weel C,
3. van Schayck CP,
4. et al.
(2007) NHG standaard COPD (Tweede herziening). Huisarts Wet 8:362–379.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Freeman G,
2. Hughes J
(2010) Continuity of care and the patient experience. An inquiry into the quality of general practice in England (The King's Fund, London).
1. Uijen AA,
2. Schers HJ,
3. Schellevis FG,
4. van den Bosch WJ
(2011) How unique is continuity of care? A review of continuity and related concepts. Fam Pract, doi:10.1093/fampra/cmr104.
↵
1. Jee SH,
2. Cabana MD
(2006) Indices for continuity of care: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 63(2):158–188.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
↵
1. Schers HJ
(2004) Continuity of care in general practice. Exploring the balance between personal and informational continuity (Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen).
↵
1. Schunemann HJ,
2. Goldstein R,
3. Mador MJ,
4. et al.
(2005) A randomised trial to evaluate the self-administered standardised chronic respiratory questionnaire. Eur Respir J 25(1):31–40.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
1. Schunemann HJ,
2. Puhan M,
3. Goldstein R,
4. et al.
(2005) Measurement properties and interpretability of the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ). COPD 2(1):81–89.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
↵
1. Bourbeau J,
2. Sebaldt RJ,
3. Day A,
4. et al.
(2008) Practice patterns in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary practice: the CAGE study. Can Respir J 15(1):13–19.
OpenUrl PubMed
↵
1. Afonso AS,
2. Verhamme KM,
3. Sturkenboom MC,
4. Brusselle GG
(2011) COPD in the general population: prevalence, incidence and survival. Respir Med 105(12):1872–1884.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

In this issue

Download PDF

Download PowerPoint

Email Article

Citation Tools

Keywords

More in this TOC Section

Show more Research

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

[1] ↵
Mannino DM,
Buist AS
(2007) Global burden of COPD: risk factors, prevalence, and future trends. Lancet 370(9589):765–773.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[2] Mannino DM,

[3] Buist AS

[4] ↵
Rabe KF,
Beghe B,
Luppi F,
Fabbri LM
(2007) Update in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 2006. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 175(12):1222–1232.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[5] Rabe KF,

[6] Beghe B,

[7] Luppi F,

[8] Fabbri LM

[9] ↵
Heller KS,
Solomon MZ
(2005) Continuity of care and caring: what matters to parents of children with life-threatening conditions. J Pediatr Nurs 20(5):335–346.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[10] Heller KS,

[11] Solomon MZ

[12] ↵
Schers H,
van den Hoogen H,
Bor H,
et al.
(2005) Familiarity with a GP and patients’ evaluations of care. A cross-sectional study. Fam Pract 22(1):15–19.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[13] Schers H,

[14] van den Hoogen H,

[15] Bor H,

[16] et al.

[17] Hjortdahl P,
Laerum E
(1992) Continuity of care in general practice: effect on patient satisfaction. BMJ 304(6837):1287–1290.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[18] Hjortdahl P,

[19] Laerum E

[20] ↵
Saultz JW,
Albedaiwi W
(2004) Interpersonal continuity of care and patient satisfaction: a critical review. Ann Fam Med 2(5):445–451.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[21] Saultz JW,

[22] Albedaiwi W

[23] ↵
Gray DP,
Evans P,
Sweeney K,
et al.
(2003) Towards a theory of continuity of care. J R Soc Med 96(4):160–166.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[24] Gray DP,

[25] Evans P,

[26] Sweeney K,

[27] et al.

[28] ↵
Adair CE,
McDougall GM,
Mitton CR,
et al.
(2005) Continuity of care and health outcomes among persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 56(9):1061–1069.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[29] Adair CE,

[30] McDougall GM,

[31] Mitton CR,

[32] et al.

[33] ↵
Chien CF,
Steinwachs DM,
Lehman A,
et al.
(2000) Provider continuity and outcomes of care for persons with schizophrenia. Ment Health Serv Res 2(4):201–211.
OpenUrl CrossRef

[34] Chien CF,

[35] Steinwachs DM,

[36] Lehman A,

[37] et al.

[38] ↵
Hanninen J,
Takala J,
Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi S
(2001) Good continuity of care may improve quality of life in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 51(1):21–27.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[39] Hanninen J,

[40] Takala J,

[41] Keinanen-Kiukaanniemi S

[42] ↵
King M,
Jones L,
Richardson A,
et al.
(2008) The relationship between patients’ experiences of continuity of cancer care and health outcomes: a mixed methods study. Br J Cancer 98(3):529–536.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[43] King M,

[44] Jones L,

[45] Richardson A,

[46] et al.

[47] ↵
Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease
Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (updated 2010), http://www.goldcopd.org/uploads/users/files/GOLDReport_April112011.pdf (accessed 4 Apr 2012).

[48] Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease

[49] ↵
Bourbeau J,
Julien M,
Maltais F,
et al.
(2003) Reduction of hospital utilization in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a disease-specific self-management intervention. Arch Intern Med 163(5):585–591.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[50] Bourbeau J,

[51] Julien M,

[52] Maltais F,

[53] et al.

[54] ↵
National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions
(2004) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. National clinical guideline on management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults in primary and secondary care. Thorax 59(Suppl 1):1–232.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text

[55] National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions

[56] ↵
Smeele IJM,
van Weel C,
van Schayck CP,
et al.
(2007) NHG standaard COPD (Tweede herziening). Huisarts Wet 8:362–379.
OpenUrl

[57] Smeele IJM,

[58] van Weel C,

[59] van Schayck CP,

[60] et al.

[61] ↵
Freeman G,
Hughes J
(2010) Continuity of care and the patient experience. An inquiry into the quality of general practice in England (The King's Fund, London).

[62] Freeman G,

[63] Hughes J

[64] Uijen AA,
Schers HJ,
Schellevis FG,
van den Bosch WJ
(2011) How unique is continuity of care? A review of continuity and related concepts. Fam Pract, doi:10.1093/fampra/cmr104.

[65] Uijen AA,

[66] Schers HJ,

[67] Schellevis FG,

[68] van den Bosch WJ

[69] ↵
Jee SH,
Cabana MD
(2006) Indices for continuity of care: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 63(2):158–188.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[70] Jee SH,

[71] Cabana MD

[72] ↵
Schers HJ
(2004) Continuity of care in general practice. Exploring the balance between personal and informational continuity (Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen).

[73] Schers HJ

[74] ↵
Schunemann HJ,
Goldstein R,
Mador MJ,
et al.
(2005) A randomised trial to evaluate the self-administered standardised chronic respiratory questionnaire. Eur Respir J 25(1):31–40.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[75] Schunemann HJ,

[76] Goldstein R,

[77] Mador MJ,

[78] et al.

[79] ↵
Schunemann HJ,
Puhan M,
Goldstein R,
et al.
(2005) Measurement properties and interpretability of the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire (CRQ). COPD 2(1):81–89.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[80] Schunemann HJ,

[81] Puhan M,

[82] Goldstein R,

[83] et al.

[84] ↵
Bourbeau J,
Sebaldt RJ,
Day A,
et al.
(2008) Practice patterns in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary practice: the CAGE study. Can Respir J 15(1):13–19.
OpenUrl PubMed

[85] Bourbeau J,

[86] Sebaldt RJ,

[87] Day A,

[88] et al.

[89] ↵
Afonso AS,
Verhamme KM,
Sturkenboom MC,
Brusselle GG
(2011) COPD in the general population: prevalence, incidence and survival. Respir Med 105(12):1872–1884.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[90] Afonso AS,

[91] Verhamme KM,

[92] Sturkenboom MC,

[93] Brusselle GG

Main menu

User menu

Search

Continuity in different care modes and its relationship to quality of life: a randomised controlled trial in patients with COPD

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

METHOD

Design

Participants

How this fits in

Interventions

Usual care

Self-management as an adjunct to usual care

Regular monitoring as an adjunct to usual care

Outcome and measurements

Continuity of care

Quality of life

Analysis

RESULTS

Patient selection

Patient characteristics

Personal continuity

Team continuity

Continuity and quality of life

DISCUSSION

Summary

Strengths and limitations

Comparison with existing literature

Implications for practice

Notes

Funding

Ethical approval

Provenance

Competing interests

Discuss this article

REFERENCES

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Jump to section

Keywords

More in this TOC Section

Related Articles

Cited By...

NAVIGATE

RCGP

MY ACCOUNT

NEWS AND UPDATES

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

CUSTOMER SERVICES

CONTRIBUTE

CONTACT US