Continuity of care in diverse ethnic groups: a general practice record study in England

Mai Stafford; Laia Bécares; Brenda Hayanga; Mark Ashworth; Rebecca Fisher

doi:10.3399/BJGP.2022.0271

Abstract

Background GPs and patients value continuity of care. Ethnic differences in continuity could contribute to inequalities in experience and outcomes.

Aim To describe relational continuity of care in general practice by ethnicity and long-term conditions.

Design and setting In total, 381 474 patients in England were included from a random sample from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (January 2016 to December 2019).

Method Face-to-face, telephone, and online consultations with a GP were included. Continuity, measured by the Usual Provider of Care and Bice–Boxerman indices, was calculated for patients with ≥3 consultations. Ethnicity was taken from the GP record or linked Hospital Episode Statistics data, and long-term conditions were counted at baseline. Multilevel regression models were used to describe continuity by ethnicity sequentially adjusted for: a) the number of consultations, follow-up time, age, sex, and practice-level random intercept; b) socioeconomic deprivation in the patient’s residential area; and c) long-term conditions.

Results On full adjustment, 5 of 10 ethnic minority groups (Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Black African, Black Caribbean, and any other Black background) had lower continuity of care compared with White patients. Continuity was lower for patients in more deprived areas and younger patients but this did not account for ethnic differences in continuity. Differences by ethnicity were also seen in patients with ≥2 long-term conditions.

Conclusion Ethnic minority identity and socioeconomic deprivation have additive associations with lower continuity of care. Structural factors affecting demand for, and supply of, GPs should be assessed for their contribution to ethnic inequalities in relational continuity and other care quality domains.

INTRODUCTION

Relational continuity of care — understood to mean an ongoing therapeutic relationship between patient and practitioner — is associated with a range of positive outcomes. These include lower mortality, fewer hospital admissions, fewer condition-related complications, and higher patient satisfaction.¹^–⁴ Relational continuity of care may be particularly important for people with multiple long-term conditions⁵ as it has also been associated with lower risk of unscheduled hospital care and slower progression to additional conditions.⁶^,⁷ UK evidence on the association between number of long-term conditions and relational continuity is mixed. One national study found that having more long-term conditions was associated with lower continuity.⁸ This was primarily driven by their higher number of consultations, as continuity of care indices tend to be negatively correlated with total number of consultations.³^,⁹ One study set in London found no association between number of long-term conditions and continuity.¹⁰

Evidence indicates a higher prevalence of multiple long-term conditions in people from ethnic minority backgrounds in the UK.¹¹ Among people with multiple long-term conditions, there is evidence of poorer outcomes including higher mortality and more emergency admissions to hospital for some ethnic minority groups compared with the White majority.¹¹^–¹³ One possibility is that ethnic inequalities in health care, such as continuity of care, contribute to these poorer outcomes.

Few UK studies describe continuity of care by ethnicity. Data from the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) show a decline in relational continuity between 2011 and 2017 across most sociodemographic groups¹⁴^,¹⁵ but with a greater decline for ethnic minority groups than for patients of White ethnicity.¹⁶ The GPPS also shows that patients from some ethnic minority groups have a higher preference to see a particular GP but less success in doing so.¹⁷ The association between ethnicity and poorer experience of continuity with GPs has persisted over time,¹⁸^,¹⁹ and has been found in a recent study triangulating survey data and GP records.²⁰ These studies have not focused on possible ethnic inequalities in care for people with multiple long-term conditions.

The aims of the present study were to describe relational continuity of care in general practice by ethnicity at differing levels and types of long-term conditions. Although there are other dimensions of continuity of care including management continuity, relating to whether care is managed in a consistent and coordinated way, and informational continuity, relating to how the information held about a patient is shared and draws on their preferences and health goals, this study focused on relational continuity. Both the total count of conditions and the combinations of mental and physical conditions were considered. Mental health conditions are common among people with multiple conditions, and those with mental–physical multimorbidity are at greater risk of poor outcomes than those with only physical or only mental health conditions.²¹^–²⁴ They may particularly benefit from relational continuity for support to manage their complex care needs.²⁵ Existing evidence suggests that mental–physical multimorbidity is less prevalent in the healthcare records of some ethnic minority groups compared with patients of White ethnicity.²⁶^,²⁷ In the current study, the hypotheses were:

that people from ethnic minority backgrounds would have lower continuity than those of White ethnicity;
that these patterns would be seen for people with multiple physical health conditions and those with a combination of physical and mental health conditions; and
given the greater levels of socioeconomic deprivation experienced by many ethnic minority groups, and the negative association between deprivation and continuity,¹⁶ that area deprivation would be on the explanatory pathway — so adjustment for deprivation would partly explain ethnic inequalities in continuity of care.

Nationally representative survey data show lower continuity of care for most ethnic minority groups. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first national study to examine ethnic inequalities in continuity of care using GP records. The study found that relational continuity of care was lower for people from Black African, Black Caribbean, any other Black background, Bangladeshi, and Pakistani ethnic groups. These ethnic inequalities are not accounted for by socioeconomic deprivation and are seen for people with and without multiple long-term conditions.

How this fits in

METHOD

Participants

A random sample of 690 000 patients was drawn from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD Aurum²⁸). CPRD includes pseudonymised primary care records for over 40 million patients. Patients eligible for the present study met the following criteria on 1 January 2016: registered in a CPRD practice; aged ≥18 years; eligible for linkage to Hospital Episode Statistics (Admitted Patient Care) and Office for National Statistics area deprivation data (2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation based on patient’s residential Lower Layer Super Output Area); and with acceptable data quality.

All consultations with a GP (including locums and sessional GPs) that took place between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2019 and were face-to-face, telephone, or online were included.²⁹

Measures

Continuity of care was captured on two widely used indices. The two indices are positively correlated but are differently affected by the total number of GPs that a patient sees.

The Usual Provider of Care (UPC) index captures the concentration of care with a specified GP.³⁰ It is calculated as the maximum number of visits to the same GP divided by the total number of visits over a specified time period. Although the UPC is straightforward to interpret, it does not account for the fact that a patient may have high relational continuity with >1 GP. For example, a patient with five visits to the same GP plus five visits to five different GPs would have the same UPC (0.5) as a patient with 10 visits spread equally across only two GPs.

The Bice–Boxerman Continuity of Care (COC) index captures the concentration of visits across all the GPs seen.³¹ It is calculated as the square of the number of visits with a GP, summed across all GPs and divided by the product of the total number of visits and the total number of visits minus 1. Here, the COC index would be 0.22 and 0.44, respectively, for the two scenarios described above. Patients with a minimum of three consultations during follow-up from 2016 to 2019 were included in the main analysis. Shorter follow-up was also considered in sensitivity analysis.

Ethnicity was taken from SNOMED CT codes in the primary care record or, if missing, from the Hospital Episode Statistics (Admitted Patient Care) record, using a previously published algorithm for dealing with multiple observations of ethnicity.³² The England and Wales 2011 Census categories were used but the White British and other White ethnic groups were combined to reduce the number of missing values in the main analysis. In sensitivity analysis, the White ethnicity group and the mixed ethnicity group were disaggregated.

The number of long-term conditions was counted on 1 January 2016 from a list adapted from previous analysis of CPRD³³ and Scottish primary care data³⁴ (Supplementary Table S1) based on published SNOMED CT code lists.³⁵ In addition to the total count, patients with four different combinations of conditions were identified: zero or one condition; two or more physical health conditions; two or more mental health conditions; and one or more physical and one or more mental health condition.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were adjusted for number of consultations and for length of follow-up to account for some patients leaving the practice or dying before 31 December 2019, or the practice ceasing contributions to CPRD. Using multilevel linear regression models to allow for the clustering of patients within the same GP practice, first bivariate associations between each covariate and the two continuity of care indices were estimated. Then, estimated differences in continuity of care across ethnic minority groups were compared with the majority White ethnic group with adjustment for: a) age and sex; b) Index of Multiple Deprivation based on the residential postcode of the patient; and c) number or combination of long-term conditions.

In sensitivity analysis, continuity of care over a period of 12 months was calculated with the sample limited to patients with at least three consultations between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016. More detailed ethnic groups were also examined for the subset of patients where this was available, breaking down the White ethnic group as British/Irish/other White, and the mixed ethnic group as White, Asian/White, African/White, and Caribbean/other mixed.

RESULTS

From the initial sample, patients with <3 GP consultations during follow-up were excluded (Figure 1). Males and younger patients were overrepresented in those excluded. In total, a further 32 233 patients with missing data were excluded. Males, younger patients, and those living in the least deprived areas were overrepresented in those further excluded because of missing ethnicity data (Supplementary Table S2).

Figure 1.

Analytical sample flow chart. IMD = Index of Multiple Deprivation.

Females and patients living in the least deprived fifth of areas were overrepresented in the analytical sample (Table 1). Over a maximum of 4 years of follow-up, continuity on the UPC index ranged from 0.42 for those aged 18–29 years to 0.48 for those aged 70–79 years, and the COC index ranged from 0.21 to 0.30 in the same age groups. One-third of patients had ≥2 long-term conditions. This ranged from under 15% in people of Chinese ethnicity to over 35% in people of White ethnicity (Supplementary Table S3). The UPC index was lowest for people of Bangladeshi ethnicity (0.41) and was 0.45 for people of White ethnicity (Table 1). This difference translates to one additional consultation with the most frequently seen GP for every 25 visits for the White ethnic group compared with the Bangladeshi ethnic group.

View this table:

Table 1.

Continuity of care by demographic characteristics

Minimally adjusted models

Analysis adjusted for length of follow-up and total number of consultations confirmed a positive association between advancing age and continuity of care captured by the UPC index (Table 2, model 1). Females experienced lower continuity of care than males. Patients living in more deprived areas experienced lower continuity of care than patients living in areas of lower deprivation. Continuity of care increased with each additional long-term condition.

View this table:

Table 2.

Association between UPC and demographic characteristics^a

Multiply adjusted model — covariates

Multiply adjusted associations between continuity of care and demographic and clinical covariates were in the same direction as for the bivariate analysis, with the exception of long-term conditions. In the multiply adjusted analysis, continuity of care decreased with each additional long-term condition. Compared with people with ≤1 condition, those with ≥2 physical health conditions had lower continuity of care, but continuity remained higher for those with ≥2 mental health conditions or a combination of physical and mental health conditions.

Multiply adjusted model — differences across ethnic groups

In multiply adjusted analysis, 5 of the 10 ethnic minority groups (Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Black African, Black Caribbean, and any other Black background) had statistically significantly lower continuity of care than patients of White ethnicity (Table 2, models 2 and 3, and Figure 2). Patients of Indian or Chinese ethnicity had higher continuity than patients of White ethnicity. These differences in continuity across ethnic groups remained after adjustment for socioeconomic deprivation in the patient’s local area; being from an ethnic minority group and living in an area with greater deprivation were independently associated with lower continuity.

Figure 2.

Difference in continuity of care across ethnic groups. White ethnic group is used as the reference.

There was no evidence of an interaction between ethnicity and long-term conditions. The same ethnic differences in UPC were seen for all patients and for the subgroup of patients with ≥2 long-term conditions (Table 2, model 4).

Sensitivity analyses

The same patterns of ethnic inequalities in continuity were seen for the COC index (Supplementary Table S4).

Analysis was repeated with continuity of care measured over the first 12 months of follow-up from 1 January to 31 December 2016. The subset of patients with ≥3 consultations during this shorter follow-up period were older, more likely to be female, more likely to live in deprived areas, and more likely to have ≥2 long-term conditions compared with the main analytical sample (Supplementary Table S2). Mean UPC (0.57, standard deviation [SD] 0.23) and COC (0.35, SD 0.29) were higher for this subsample, as expected given the shorter follow-up time. For both indices, the associations between continuity of care over 12 months and covariates were of similar magnitude and in the same direction as the main analyses (Supplementary Table S5). Differences in continuity of care over 12 months across ethnic groups were also similar. Statistically significant lower levels of continuity of care were seen for patients from Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Black African, and Black Caribbean ethnic groups compared with patients of White ethnicity.

When the White ethnic group was disaggregated, lower continuity of care was seen for patients in the Irish ethnic group and higher continuity of care in the other White ethnic group compared with the White British ethnic group on both continuity of care indices (Supplementary Table S6). Mixed ethnic groups did not differ significantly from those in the White British ethnic group. As with the main analysis, people of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Black African, Black Caribbean, and any other Black background ethnic groups had lower continuity of care.

DISCUSSION

Summary

Continuity of care was lower for all Black ethnic groups and for Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups than for the White ethnic group. In the slightly smaller sample where it was possible to disaggregate the White ethnic group, White Irish people are seen to have lower continuity than White British people. Ethnic inequalities in continuity of care persist on adjustment for the number and type of long-term conditions present and for socioeconomic deprivation. Being from an ethnic minority group and living in a socioeconomically deprived area have additive associations with lower continuity of care.

Associations are consistent for different indices of continuity of care and different lengths of follow-up. The differences between ethnic minority groups and the White ethnic group are similar in size to the differences between the most and least deprived fifth of areas. Differences of this size likely have a modest impact on outcomes; previous studies (set outside the UK) suggest that a 0.1 difference in either the UPC³⁶ or the COC³⁷ index is associated with a modest reduction in mortality risk.

Strengths and limitations

The study used a large sample of general practice data. With over 95% of the England population registered with a GP,²⁸ the sample is nationally representative. Two indices were used in this study to capture different aspects of continuity of care and considered continuity over 1–4 years of follow-up. It was possible to disaggregate ethnicity, although the main analysis used all White ethnic groups as the comparator to minimise loss because of missing detailed ethnicity data. The main analysis may underestimate ethnic inequalities because the White Irish ethnic group had lower continuity than the White British ethnic group.

As with most previous studies, only consultations with GPs were considered. There are increasing numbers of consultations with practice nurses and allied health professionals so it would be of interest to additionally examine ethnic and other differences in continuity in those relationships.

The study controlled for key patient factors, including the presence or absence of >30 long-term conditions and combinations of physical and mental health conditions. However, data on practice factors were not available to the authors. Several practice-level factors, including those relating to the supply of and demand for GP appointments, are modifiable features that can promote or inhibit opportunities to provide continuity of care.

Comparison with existing literature

Previous studies of patients in England have used cross-sectional survey data to examine preferences for and experience of relational continuity of care across ethnic groups. A study of >2 million responders to the 2009/2010 GPPS described continuity across detailed ethnic groups.¹⁷ All ethnic minority groups were less likely to see their preferred doctor most of the time compared with those of White British ethnicity. The present findings align with that study for Black, Bangladeshi, and Pakistani groups but not for patients of Indian or Chinese ethnicity. That study adjusted for a similar set of covariates including sex, age group, deprivation quintile, and presence of long-term medical and psychological conditions. They additionally adjusted for number of GPs in the practice and the urgency of appointments the patient had recently sought, but these adjustments did not alter the direction of differences in continuity across ethnic groups.

Several other analyses of surveys of general practice have shown poorer experience of primary health care, including experience of making appointments, communication, interpersonal care, and continuity of care in most ethnic minority groups.¹⁸^,¹⁹^,³⁸ The present study and one other²⁰ using routine health data indicate that differences in expectations and other aspects of self-reporting bias¹⁶^,³⁹ are not feasible explanations for these ethnic inequalities.

Implications for research and practice

Continuity of care is valued by patients and GPs⁴⁰ but this research shows that it is less available to some ethnic minority groups, including for people with multiple long-term conditions. It is plausible that aspects of healthcare delivery, including lower continuity of care, could contribute to poorer outcomes for people with multiple long-term conditions from ethnic minority groups, although this was not directly tested in the present study. Insufficient local service support to help manage long-term conditions has been described in the lived experience of people from ethnic minority groups.⁴¹ Given the established associations between continuity of care and adverse outcomes, including higher mortality, unplanned admissions, and complications,¹^–³ further analysis is required to test and quantify continuity as a possible link between ethnicity and these outcomes. Continuity of care has been identified as one way of tackling inequalities in other medical specialties. For example, the NHS Long Term Plan committed to improving continuity of care during pregnancy as one approach to tackling ethnic inequalities in maternity outcomes.⁴² The findings in the present study suggest that there could be a need to tackle inequalities in continuity of care in primary care, with possible implications for improving outcomes for people from ethnic minority groups with long-term conditions.

The present study did not explore barriers and enablers to continuity of care. There are several practice-level factors that may affect continuity and may result in differences across ethnic groups. These include aspects of demand for general practice, such as the size of the practice (with practices with a larger list size having lower continuity¹⁴^,⁴³), the number of new registrations, the health of the practice catchment area population, and local socioeconomic deprivation.¹⁶

Aspects of supply may also be related to continuity. Practices differ in how they balance rapid access to GPs with promoting higher continuity of care. GP staffing patterns, booking systems, and the total number of appointments available to book are also likely to affect patients’ ability to see a preferred GP. Continuity of care is lower where there are more part-time GPs or more GPs in the practice, and is higher in single-handed practices.¹⁷^,⁴⁴^,⁴⁵ There are also national drivers that likely affect access and the ability of practices to offer higher continuity. General practice in deprived areas is underfunded and underdoctored relative to need.⁴⁶ Making the distribution of funding between general practices more equitable, and developing workforce initiatives to attract and retain general practice staff in underdoctored areas⁴⁷ may reduce inequalities in continuity of care by increasing supply.

Several of the factors discussed above — the health of the practice catchment area population, underfunding and underdoctoring relative to need, and area-level socioeconomic deprivation — are unequally distributed across ethnic groups. These are manifestations of structural racism. Structural racism refers to the way in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of health care, housing, education, employment, criminal justice, earnings, and benefits, among others. These patterns and practices in turn reinforce discriminatory beliefs, values, and the distribution of resources.⁴⁸ The structural factors operating across the life course⁴⁹ that lead to overrepresentation of ethnic minority groups in more socioeconomically deprived areas will therefore make a contribution to the inequalities in continuity of care seen in this and other studies. The persistence of the association between ethnicity and continuity even after statistically controlling for area deprivation indicates that additional pathways may be operating. Racism may have additional effects on continuity of care through differences in the way that people from ethnic minority groups are treated in GP practices or experience barriers in living near and accessing the highest level of GP services. Sociocultural norms and language barriers may also contribute to ethnic differences in what patients expect or feel they can influence, and this could affect the extent to which people from some ethnic minority groups seek continuity of care.⁵⁰^,⁵¹

Further research is needed to understand why some ethnic minority groups have poorer continuity of care and to identify initiatives that could be made to improve services to meet their needs. The patient–practitioner relationship that is developed through higher continuity of care could help bridge cultural differences and reduce the lack of trust, experiences of insensitive behaviour, and lack of listening that is more commonly experienced in healthcare settings by people from some ethnic minority groups.⁵¹

Studies show that continuity of care has been declining in England in recent years.¹⁴^,¹⁵ It is not yet clear how the introduction of primary care networks, the chronic shortage of GPs, the increasing use of remote consultations, and other changes in general practice will affect continuity⁵²^,⁵³ and inequalities in continuity as the UK recovers from the long-term effects of the pandemic. Ongoing monitoring will be needed.

In conclusion, this analysis of routine health record data from a large sample of patients followed over 4 years shows that relational continuity of care is lower for people from Black African, Black Caribbean, any other Black background, Bangladeshi, and Pakistani ethnic groups. These ethnic inequalities are not accounted for by socioeconomic deprivation and are seen for people with and without multiple long-term conditions.

Acknowledgments

This work uses data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. The authors thank the Data Management Team at the Health Foundation for their work in preparing the data, and Ribka Aschalew for help with data visualisation.

Notes

Funding

This study did not receive funding from a funding body.

Ethical approval

Routinely collected, retrospective, anonymised data were used for this analysis. Approval to use the data was granted by the Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) team (CPRD protocol number: 21_000333).

Data

This study used data from the CPRD. CPRD data may be accessed by bona fide researchers for public health research who are funded by trustworthy organisations. New requests to access the data are assessed through a Research Data Governance process: https://www.cprd.com/Data-access.

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: bjgp.org/letters

Received May 27, 2022.
Revision requested July 3, 2022.
Accepted August 22, 2022.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).

REFERENCES

1.↵
1. Gray DJP,
2. Sidaway-Lee K,
3. White E,
4. et al.
(2018) Continuity of care with doctors — a matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality. BMJ Open 8, 6, e021161.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
2.
1. Chan KS,
2. Wan EYF,
3. Chin WY,
4. et al.
(2021) Effects of continuity of care on health outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 22, 1, 145.
OpenUrl
3.↵
1. Barker I,
2. Steventon A,
3. Deeny SR
(2017) Association between continuity of care in general practice and hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: cross sectional study of routinely collected, person level data. BMJ 356, j84.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
4.↵
1. Paddison CAM,
2. Abel GA,
3. Roland MO,
4. et al.
(2015) Drivers of overall satisfaction with primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey. Health Expect 18, 5, 1081–1092.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
5.↵
1. Fuller C
(2022) Next steps for integrating primary care: Fuller stocktake report, https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/next-steps-for-integrating-primary-care-fuller-stocktake-report (accessed 14 Oct 2022).
6.↵
1. Gruneir A,
2. Bronskill SE,
3. Maxwell CJ,
4. et al.
(2016) The association between multimorbidity and hospitalization is modified by individual demographics and physician continuity of care: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res 16, 154.
OpenUrl PubMed
7.↵
1. Chau E,
2. Rosella LC,
3. Mondor L,
4. Wodchis WP
(2021) Association between continuity of care and subsequent diagnosis of multimorbidity in Ontario, Canada from 2001–2015: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS One 16, 3, e0245193.
OpenUrl
8.↵
1. Salisbury C,
2. Johnson L,
3. Purdy S,
4. et al.
(2011) Epidemiology and impact of multimorbidity in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11X548929.
9.↵
1. Tran B,
2. Falster M,
3. Jorm L
(2018) Claims-based measures of continuity of care have non-linear associations with health: data linkage study. Int J Popul Data Sci 3, 1, 463.
OpenUrl
10.↵
1. Gulliford M,
2. Cowie L,
3. Morgan M
(2011) Relational and management continuity survey in patients with multiple long-term conditions. J Health Serv Res Policy 16, 2, 67–74.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
11.↵
1. Bisquera A,
2. Turner EB,
3. Ledwaba-Chapman L,
4. et al.
(2022) Inequalities in developing multimorbidity over time: a population-based cohort study from an urban, multi-ethnic borough in the United Kingdom. Lancet Reg Health Eur 12, 100247.
OpenUrl
12.
1. Stafford M,
2. Knight H,
3. Hughes J,
4. et al.
(2022) Associations between multiple long-term conditions and mortality in diverse ethnic groups. PLoS One 17, 4, e0266418.
OpenUrl CrossRef
13.↵
1. Wijlaars LPMM,
2. Hardelid P,
3. Guttmann A,
4. Gilbert R
(2018) Emergency admissions and long-term conditions during transition from paediatric to adult care: a cross-sectional study using Hospital Episode Statistics data. BMJ Open 8, 6, 21015.
OpenUrl
14.↵
1. Levene LS,
2. Baker R,
3. Walker N,
4. et al.
(2018) Predicting declines in perceived relationship continuity using practice deprivation scores: a longitudinal study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X696209.
15.↵
1. Tammes P,
2. Morris RW,
3. Murphy M,
4. Salisbury C
(2021) Is continuity of primary care declining in England? Practice-level longitudinal study from 2012 to 2017. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.0935.
16.↵
1. Saunders CL,
2. Flynn S,
3. Massou E,
4. et al.
(2021) Sociodemographic inequalities in patients’ experiences of primary care: an analysis of the General Practice Patient Survey in England between 2011 and 2017. J Health Serv Res Policy 26, 3, 198–207.
OpenUrl
17.↵
1. Aboulghate A,
2. Abel G,
3. Elliott MN,
4. et al.
(2012) Do English patients want continuity of care, and do they receive it? Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X653624.
18.↵
1. Mead N,
2. Roland M
(2009) Understanding why some ethnic minority patients evaluate medical care more negatively than white patients: a cross sectional analysis of a routine patient survey in English general practices. BMJ 339, b3450.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
19.↵
1. Campbell JL,
2. Ramsay J,
3. Green J
(2001) Age, gender, socioeconomic, and ethnic differences in patients’ assessments of primary health care. Qual Health Care 10, 2, 90–95.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
20.↵
1. Hull SA,
2. Williams C,
3. Schofield P,
4. et al.
(2022) Measuring continuity of care in general practice: a comparison of two methods using routinely collected data. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0043.
21.↵
1. Vasiliadis HM,
2. Guerra SG,
3. Chudzinski V,
4. Préville M
(2016) Healthcare costs in chronically ill community-living older adults are dependent on mental disorders. J Public Health (Oxf) 38, 4, e563–e570.
OpenUrl
22.
1. Willadsen T,
2. Siersma V,
3. Nicolaisdóttir D,
4. et al.
(2018) Multimorbidity and mortality: a 15-year longitudinal registry-based nationwide Danish population study. J Comorb 8, 1, 2235042, X18804063.
OpenUrl
23.
1. Ng SK,
2. Martin SA,
3. Adams RJ,
4. et al.
(2020) The effect of multimorbidity patterns and the impact of comorbid anxiety and depression on primary health service use: the men androgen inflammation lifestyle environment and stress (MAILES) study. Am J Mens Health 14, 5, 1557988320959993.
OpenUrl
24.↵
1. Cicek M,
2. Hayhoe B,
3. Otis M,
4. et al.
(2022) Depression and unplanned secondary healthcare use in patients with multimorbidity: a systematic review. PLoS One 17, 4, e0266605.
OpenUrl
25.↵
1. Salisbury C,
2. Man MS,
3. Bower P,
4. et al.
(2018) Management of multimorbidity using a patient-centred care model: a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of the 3D approach. Lancet 392, 10141, 41–50.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
26.↵
1. Ashworth M,
2. Durbaba S,
3. Whitney D,
4. et al.
(2019) Journey to multimorbidity: longitudinal analysis exploring cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic determinants in an urban setting. BMJ Open 9, 12, e031649.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
27.↵
1. Bobo WV,
2. Yawn BP,
3. St Sauver JL,
4. et al.
(2016) Prevalence of combined somatic and mental health multimorbidity: patterns by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci 71, 11, 1483–1491.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
28.↵
1. Wolf A,
2. Dedman D,
3. Campbell J,
4. et al.
(2019) Data Resource Profile Data resource profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum UK primary care. Int J Epidemiol 48, 6, 1740–1740g.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
29.↵
1. Watt T,
2. Sullivan R,
3. Aggarwal A
(2022) Primary care and cancer: an analysis of the impact and inequalities of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient pathways. BMJ Open 12, 3, e059374.
OpenUrl
30.↵
1. Breslau N,
2. Reeb KG
(1975) Continuity of care in a university-based practice. J Med Educ 50, 10, 965–969.
OpenUrl PubMed
31.↵
1. Bice TW,
2. Boxerman SB
(1977) A quantitative measure of continuity of care. Med Care 15, 4, 347–349.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
32.↵
1. Mathur R,
2. Bhaskaran K,
3. Chaturvedi N,
4. et al.
(2014) Completeness and usability of ethnicity data in UK-based primary care and hospital databases. J Public Health 36, 4, 684–692.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
33.↵
1. Cassell A,
2. Edwards D,
3. Harshfield A,
4. et al.
(2018) The epidemiology of multimorbidity in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X695465.
34.↵
1. Barnett K,
2. Mercer SW,
3. Norbury M,
4. et al.
(2012) Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 380, 9836, 37–43.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
35.↵
1. Annalhead
CPRD_multimorbidity_codelists. https://github.com/annalhead/CPRD_multimorbidity_codelists (accessed 14 Oct 2022).
36.↵
1. Blecker S,
2. Shine D,
3. Park N,
4. et al.
(2014) Association of weekend continuity of care with hospital length of stay. Int J Qual Heal Care 26, 5, 530–537.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
37.↵
1. Leleu H,
2. Minvielle E
(2013) Relationship between longitudinal continuity of primary care and likelihood of death: analysis of national insurance data. PLoS One 8, 8, e71669.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
38.↵
1. Majeed A,
2. Maile EJ,
3. Corononi-Cronberg S
(Sep 1, 2020) Covid-19 is magnifying the digital divide. BMJ Opinion, https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/09/01/covid-19-is-magnifying-the-digital-divide (accessed 14 Oct 2022).
39.↵
1. Kontopantelis E,
2. Roland M,
3. Reeves D
(2010) Patient experience of access to primary care: identification of predictors in a national patient survey. BMC Fam Pract 11, 61.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
40.↵
1. Hill AP,
2. Freeman GK
(2011) Promoting continuity of care in general practice, https://www.rcgp.org.uk/getmedia/bda9fb5b-e52b-454d-af1f-e27f3df4100f/RCGP-Continuity-of-Care.pdf (accessed 14 Oct 2022).
41.↵
1. Taskforce on Multiple Conditions
(2021) You only had to ask: what people with multiple conditions say about health equity, https://richmondgroupofcharities.org.uk/sites/default/files/youonlyhadtoask_fullreport_july2021_final.pdf (accessed 14 Oct 2022).
42.↵
1. NHS England
(2018) Maternity and neonatal services. The NHS Long Term Plan, https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/online-version/chapter-3-further-progress-on-care-quality-and-outcomes/a-strong-start-in-life-for-children-and-young-people/maternity-and-neonatal-services (accessed 14 Oct 2022).
43.↵
1. Forbes LJL,
2. Forbes H,
3. Sutton M,
4. et al.
(2020) Changes in patient experience associated with growth and collaboration in general practice: observational study using data from the UK GP Patient Survey. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X713429.
44.↵
1. Panattoni L,
2. Stone A,
3. Chung S,
4. Tai-Seale M
(2015) Patients report better satisfaction with part-time primary care physicians, despite less continuity of care and access. J Gen Intern Med 30, 3, 327–333.
OpenUrl PubMed
45.↵
1. Kristjansson E,
2. Hogg W,
3. Dahrouge S,
4. et al.
(2013) Predictors of relational continuity in primary care: patient, provider and practice factors. BMC Fam Pract 14, 72.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
46.↵
1. Fisher R,
2. Dunn P,
3. Asaria M,
4. Thorlby R
(2020) Briefing: Level or not? Comparing general practice in areas of high and low socioeconomic deprivation in England, https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/level-or-not (accessed 14 Oct 2022).
47.↵
1. Fisher R,
2. Allen L,
3. Malhotra AM,
4. Alderwick H
(2022) Tackling the inverse care law: analysis of policies to improve general practice in deprived areas since 1990, https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/tackling-the-inverse-care-law (accessed 14 Oct 2022).
48.↵
1. Bailey ZD,
2. Krieger N,
3. Agénor M,
4. et al.
(2017) Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. Lancet 389, 10077, 1453–1463.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
49.↵
1. Gee GC,
2. Hicken MT
(2021) Structural racism: the rules and relations of inequity. Ethn Dis 31, Suppl 1, 293–300.
OpenUrl
50.↵
1. Szczepura A
(2005) Access to health care for ethnic minority populations. Postgrad Med J 81, 141–147.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
51.↵
1. Kapadia D,
2. Zhang J,
3. Salway S,
4. et al.
(2022) Ethnic inequalities in healthcare: a rapid evidence review, https://www.nhsrho.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/RHO-Rapid-Review-Final-Report_v.7.pdf (accessed 14 Oct 2022).
52.↵
1. Fisher R,
2. Thorlby R,
3. Alderwick H
(2019) Briefing: Understanding primary care networks: context, benefits and risks, https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/understanding-primary-care-networks (accessed 14 Oct 2022).
53.↵
1. Jeffers H,
2. Baker M
(2016) Continuity of care: still important in modern-day general practice. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X686185.

View Abstract

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] 1.↵
Gray DJP,
Sidaway-Lee K,
White E,
et al.
(2018) Continuity of care with doctors — a matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality. BMJ Open 8, 6, e021161.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[2] Gray DJP,

[3] Sidaway-Lee K,

[4] White E,

[5] et al.

[6] 2.
Chan KS,
Wan EYF,
Chin WY,
et al.
(2021) Effects of continuity of care on health outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 22, 1, 145.
OpenUrl

[7] Chan KS,

[8] Wan EYF,

[9] Chin WY,

[10] et al.

[11] 3.↵
Barker I,
Steventon A,
Deeny SR
(2017) Association between continuity of care in general practice and hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: cross sectional study of routinely collected, person level data. BMJ 356, j84.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[12] Barker I,

[13] Steventon A,

[14] Deeny SR

[15] 4.↵
Paddison CAM,
Abel GA,
Roland MO,
et al.
(2015) Drivers of overall satisfaction with primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey. Health Expect 18, 5, 1081–1092.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[16] Paddison CAM,

[17] Abel GA,

[18] Roland MO,

[19] et al.

[20] 5.↵
Fuller C
(2022) Next steps for integrating primary care: Fuller stocktake report, https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/next-steps-for-integrating-primary-care-fuller-stocktake-report (accessed 14 Oct 2022).

[21] Fuller C

[22] 6.↵
Gruneir A,
Bronskill SE,
Maxwell CJ,
et al.
(2016) The association between multimorbidity and hospitalization is modified by individual demographics and physician continuity of care: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res 16, 154.
OpenUrl PubMed

[23] Gruneir A,

[24] Bronskill SE,

[25] Maxwell CJ,

[26] et al.

[27] 7.↵
Chau E,
Rosella LC,
Mondor L,
Wodchis WP
(2021) Association between continuity of care and subsequent diagnosis of multimorbidity in Ontario, Canada from 2001–2015: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS One 16, 3, e0245193.
OpenUrl

[28] Chau E,

[29] Rosella LC,

[30] Mondor L,

[31] Wodchis WP

[32] 8.↵
Salisbury C,
Johnson L,
Purdy S,
et al.
(2011) Epidemiology and impact of multimorbidity in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11X548929.

[33] Salisbury C,

[34] Johnson L,

[35] Purdy S,

[36] et al.

[37] 9.↵
Tran B,
Falster M,
Jorm L
(2018) Claims-based measures of continuity of care have non-linear associations with health: data linkage study. Int J Popul Data Sci 3, 1, 463.
OpenUrl

[38] Tran B,

[39] Falster M,

[40] Jorm L

[41] 10.↵
Gulliford M,
Cowie L,
Morgan M
(2011) Relational and management continuity survey in patients with multiple long-term conditions. J Health Serv Res Policy 16, 2, 67–74.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[42] Gulliford M,

[43] Cowie L,

[44] Morgan M

[45] 11.↵
Bisquera A,
Turner EB,
Ledwaba-Chapman L,
et al.
(2022) Inequalities in developing multimorbidity over time: a population-based cohort study from an urban, multi-ethnic borough in the United Kingdom. Lancet Reg Health Eur 12, 100247.
OpenUrl

[46] Bisquera A,

[47] Turner EB,

[48] Ledwaba-Chapman L,

[49] et al.

[50] 12.
Stafford M,
Knight H,
Hughes J,
et al.
(2022) Associations between multiple long-term conditions and mortality in diverse ethnic groups. PLoS One 17, 4, e0266418.
OpenUrl CrossRef

[51] Stafford M,

[52] Knight H,

[53] Hughes J,

[54] et al.

[55] 13.↵
Wijlaars LPMM,
Hardelid P,
Guttmann A,
Gilbert R
(2018) Emergency admissions and long-term conditions during transition from paediatric to adult care: a cross-sectional study using Hospital Episode Statistics data. BMJ Open 8, 6, 21015.
OpenUrl

[56] Wijlaars LPMM,

[57] Hardelid P,

[58] Guttmann A,

[59] Gilbert R

[60] 14.↵
Levene LS,
Baker R,
Walker N,
et al.
(2018) Predicting declines in perceived relationship continuity using practice deprivation scores: a longitudinal study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X696209.

[61] Levene LS,

[62] Baker R,

[63] Walker N,

[64] et al.

[65] 15.↵
Tammes P,
Morris RW,
Murphy M,
Salisbury C
(2021) Is continuity of primary care declining in England? Practice-level longitudinal study from 2012 to 2017. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.0935.

[66] Tammes P,

[67] Morris RW,

[68] Murphy M,

[69] Salisbury C

[70] 16.↵
Saunders CL,
Flynn S,
Massou E,
et al.
(2021) Sociodemographic inequalities in patients’ experiences of primary care: an analysis of the General Practice Patient Survey in England between 2011 and 2017. J Health Serv Res Policy 26, 3, 198–207.
OpenUrl

[71] Saunders CL,

[72] Flynn S,

[73] Massou E,

[74] et al.

[75] 17.↵
Aboulghate A,
Abel G,
Elliott MN,
et al.
(2012) Do English patients want continuity of care, and do they receive it? Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X653624.

[76] Aboulghate A,

[77] Abel G,

[78] Elliott MN,

[79] et al.

[80] 18.↵
Mead N,
Roland M
(2009) Understanding why some ethnic minority patients evaluate medical care more negatively than white patients: a cross sectional analysis of a routine patient survey in English general practices. BMJ 339, b3450.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[81] Mead N,

[82] Roland M

[83] 19.↵
Campbell JL,
Ramsay J,
Green J
(2001) Age, gender, socioeconomic, and ethnic differences in patients’ assessments of primary health care. Qual Health Care 10, 2, 90–95.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[84] Campbell JL,

[85] Ramsay J,

[86] Green J

[87] 20.↵
Hull SA,
Williams C,
Schofield P,
et al.
(2022) Measuring continuity of care in general practice: a comparison of two methods using routinely collected data. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0043.

[88] Hull SA,

[89] Williams C,

[90] Schofield P,

[91] et al.

[92] 21.↵
Vasiliadis HM,
Guerra SG,
Chudzinski V,
Préville M
(2016) Healthcare costs in chronically ill community-living older adults are dependent on mental disorders. J Public Health (Oxf) 38, 4, e563–e570.
OpenUrl

[93] Vasiliadis HM,

[94] Guerra SG,

[95] Chudzinski V,

[96] Préville M

[97] 22.
Willadsen T,
Siersma V,
Nicolaisdóttir D,
et al.
(2018) Multimorbidity and mortality: a 15-year longitudinal registry-based nationwide Danish population study. J Comorb 8, 1, 2235042, X18804063.
OpenUrl

[98] Willadsen T,

[99] Siersma V,

[100] Nicolaisdóttir D,

[101] et al.

[102] 23.
Ng SK,
Martin SA,
Adams RJ,
et al.
(2020) The effect of multimorbidity patterns and the impact of comorbid anxiety and depression on primary health service use: the men androgen inflammation lifestyle environment and stress (MAILES) study. Am J Mens Health 14, 5, 1557988320959993.
OpenUrl

[103] Ng SK,

[104] Martin SA,

[105] Adams RJ,

[106] et al.

[107] 24.↵
Cicek M,
Hayhoe B,
Otis M,
et al.
(2022) Depression and unplanned secondary healthcare use in patients with multimorbidity: a systematic review. PLoS One 17, 4, e0266605.
OpenUrl

[108] Cicek M,

[109] Hayhoe B,

[110] Otis M,

[111] et al.

[112] 25.↵
Salisbury C,
Man MS,
Bower P,
et al.
(2018) Management of multimorbidity using a patient-centred care model: a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of the 3D approach. Lancet 392, 10141, 41–50.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[113] Salisbury C,

[114] Man MS,

[115] Bower P,

[116] et al.

[117] 26.↵
Ashworth M,
Durbaba S,
Whitney D,
et al.
(2019) Journey to multimorbidity: longitudinal analysis exploring cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic determinants in an urban setting. BMJ Open 9, 12, e031649.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[118] Ashworth M,

[119] Durbaba S,

[120] Whitney D,

[121] et al.

[122] 27.↵
Bobo WV,
Yawn BP,
St Sauver JL,
et al.
(2016) Prevalence of combined somatic and mental health multimorbidity: patterns by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci 71, 11, 1483–1491.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[123] Bobo WV,

[124] Yawn BP,

[125] St Sauver JL,

[126] et al.

[127] 28.↵
Wolf A,
Dedman D,
Campbell J,
et al.
(2019) Data Resource Profile Data resource profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum UK primary care. Int J Epidemiol 48, 6, 1740–1740g.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[128] Wolf A,

[129] Dedman D,

[130] Campbell J,

[131] et al.

[132] 29.↵
Watt T,
Sullivan R,
Aggarwal A
(2022) Primary care and cancer: an analysis of the impact and inequalities of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient pathways. BMJ Open 12, 3, e059374.
OpenUrl

[133] Watt T,

[134] Sullivan R,

[135] Aggarwal A

[136] 30.↵
Breslau N,
Reeb KG
(1975) Continuity of care in a university-based practice. J Med Educ 50, 10, 965–969.
OpenUrl PubMed

[137] Breslau N,

[138] Reeb KG

[139] 31.↵
Bice TW,
Boxerman SB
(1977) A quantitative measure of continuity of care. Med Care 15, 4, 347–349.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[140] Bice TW,

[141] Boxerman SB

[142] 32.↵
Mathur R,
Bhaskaran K,
Chaturvedi N,
et al.
(2014) Completeness and usability of ethnicity data in UK-based primary care and hospital databases. J Public Health 36, 4, 684–692.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[143] Mathur R,

[144] Bhaskaran K,

[145] Chaturvedi N,

[146] et al.

[147] 33.↵
Cassell A,
Edwards D,
Harshfield A,
et al.
(2018) The epidemiology of multimorbidity in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X695465.

[148] Cassell A,

[149] Edwards D,

[150] Harshfield A,

[151] et al.

[152] 34.↵
Barnett K,
Mercer SW,
Norbury M,
et al.
(2012) Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 380, 9836, 37–43.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[153] Barnett K,

[154] Mercer SW,

[155] Norbury M,

[156] et al.

[157] 35.↵
Annalhead
CPRD_multimorbidity_codelists. https://github.com/annalhead/CPRD_multimorbidity_codelists (accessed 14 Oct 2022).

[158] Annalhead

[159] 36.↵
Blecker S,
Shine D,
Park N,
et al.
(2014) Association of weekend continuity of care with hospital length of stay. Int J Qual Heal Care 26, 5, 530–537.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[160] Blecker S,

[161] Shine D,

[162] Park N,

[163] et al.

[164] 37.↵
Leleu H,
Minvielle E
(2013) Relationship between longitudinal continuity of primary care and likelihood of death: analysis of national insurance data. PLoS One 8, 8, e71669.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[165] Leleu H,

[166] Minvielle E

[167] 38.↵
Majeed A,
Maile EJ,
Corononi-Cronberg S
(Sep 1, 2020) Covid-19 is magnifying the digital divide. BMJ Opinion, https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/09/01/covid-19-is-magnifying-the-digital-divide (accessed 14 Oct 2022).

[168] Majeed A,

[169] Maile EJ,

[170] Corononi-Cronberg S

[171] 39.↵
Kontopantelis E,
Roland M,
Reeves D
(2010) Patient experience of access to primary care: identification of predictors in a national patient survey. BMC Fam Pract 11, 61.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[172] Kontopantelis E,

[173] Roland M,

[174] Reeves D

[175] 40.↵
Hill AP,
Freeman GK
(2011) Promoting continuity of care in general practice, https://www.rcgp.org.uk/getmedia/bda9fb5b-e52b-454d-af1f-e27f3df4100f/RCGP-Continuity-of-Care.pdf (accessed 14 Oct 2022).

[176] Hill AP,

[177] Freeman GK

[178] 41.↵
Taskforce on Multiple Conditions
(2021) You only had to ask: what people with multiple conditions say about health equity, https://richmondgroupofcharities.org.uk/sites/default/files/youonlyhadtoask_fullreport_july2021_final.pdf (accessed 14 Oct 2022).

[179] Taskforce on Multiple Conditions

[180] 42.↵
NHS England
(2018) Maternity and neonatal services. The NHS Long Term Plan, https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/online-version/chapter-3-further-progress-on-care-quality-and-outcomes/a-strong-start-in-life-for-children-and-young-people/maternity-and-neonatal-services (accessed 14 Oct 2022).

[181] NHS England

[182] 43.↵
Forbes LJL,
Forbes H,
Sutton M,
et al.
(2020) Changes in patient experience associated with growth and collaboration in general practice: observational study using data from the UK GP Patient Survey. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X713429.

[183] Forbes LJL,

[184] Forbes H,

[185] Sutton M,

[186] et al.

[187] 44.↵
Panattoni L,
Stone A,
Chung S,
Tai-Seale M
(2015) Patients report better satisfaction with part-time primary care physicians, despite less continuity of care and access. J Gen Intern Med 30, 3, 327–333.
OpenUrl PubMed

[188] Panattoni L,

[189] Stone A,

[190] Chung S,

[191] Tai-Seale M

[192] 45.↵
Kristjansson E,
Hogg W,
Dahrouge S,
et al.
(2013) Predictors of relational continuity in primary care: patient, provider and practice factors. BMC Fam Pract 14, 72.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[193] Kristjansson E,

[194] Hogg W,

[195] Dahrouge S,

[196] et al.

[197] 46.↵
Fisher R,
Dunn P,
Asaria M,
Thorlby R
(2020) Briefing: Level or not? Comparing general practice in areas of high and low socioeconomic deprivation in England, https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/level-or-not (accessed 14 Oct 2022).

[198] Fisher R,

[199] Dunn P,

[200] Asaria M,

[201] Thorlby R

[202] 47.↵
Fisher R,
Allen L,
Malhotra AM,
Alderwick H
(2022) Tackling the inverse care law: analysis of policies to improve general practice in deprived areas since 1990, https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/tackling-the-inverse-care-law (accessed 14 Oct 2022).

[203] Fisher R,

[204] Allen L,

[205] Malhotra AM,

[206] Alderwick H

[207] 48.↵
Bailey ZD,
Krieger N,
Agénor M,
et al.
(2017) Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. Lancet 389, 10077, 1453–1463.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[208] Bailey ZD,

[209] Krieger N,

[210] Agénor M,

[211] et al.

[212] 49.↵
Gee GC,
Hicken MT
(2021) Structural racism: the rules and relations of inequity. Ethn Dis 31, Suppl 1, 293–300.
OpenUrl

[213] Gee GC,

[214] Hicken MT

[215] 50.↵
Szczepura A
(2005) Access to health care for ethnic minority populations. Postgrad Med J 81, 141–147.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[216] Szczepura A

[217] 51.↵
Kapadia D,
Zhang J,
Salway S,
et al.
(2022) Ethnic inequalities in healthcare: a rapid evidence review, https://www.nhsrho.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/RHO-Rapid-Review-Final-Report_v.7.pdf (accessed 14 Oct 2022).

[218] Kapadia D,

[219] Zhang J,

[220] Salway S,

[221] et al.

[222] 52.↵
Fisher R,
Thorlby R,
Alderwick H
(2019) Briefing: Understanding primary care networks: context, benefits and risks, https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/understanding-primary-care-networks (accessed 14 Oct 2022).

[223] Fisher R,

[224] Thorlby R,

[225] Alderwick H

[226] 53.↵
Jeffers H,
Baker M
(2016) Continuity of care: still important in modern-day general practice. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X686185.

[227] Jeffers H,

[228] Baker M

Main menu

User menu

Search

Continuity of care in diverse ethnic groups: a general practice record study in England

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

METHOD

Participants

Measures

Statistical analysis

RESULTS

Minimally adjusted models

Multiply adjusted model — covariates

Multiply adjusted model — differences across ethnic groups

Sensitivity analyses

DISCUSSION

Summary

Strengths and limitations

Comparison with existing literature

Implications for research and practice

Acknowledgments

Notes

Funding

Ethical approval

Data

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