Item means and total subscale score
| GP | Most important medical specialist | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | ||
| Subscale 1: Personal continuity: care provider knows me | |||
| 1. I know this care provider very well | 3.85 (n = 249) | 3.80 (n = 202) | |
| 2. This care provider knows my medical history very well | 4.00 (n = 247) | 3.97 (n = 198) | |
| 3. This care provider always remembers what he/she did during my last visit(s) | 3.90 (n = 240) | 4.02 (n = 200) | |
| 4. This care provider knows my family circumstances very well | 3.69 (n = 246) | 3.12 (n = 195) | |
| 5. This care provider knows very well what I do in my day-to-day life | 3.28 (n = 246) | 3.22 (n = 196) | |
| Total subscale score | 3.74 (n = 245) | 3.63 (n = 198) | |
| Patients with highest subscale score (ceiling effect), n(%) | 19 (7.1) | 11 (4.1) | |
| Patients with lowest subscale score (floor effect), n(%) | 0 (0) | 2 (0.7) | |
| Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) | 0.89 | 0.89 | |
| Test-retest: intraclass correlation coefficient (95% CI) | 0.82 (0.76 to 0.87) (n = 150) | 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) (n = 123) | |
| Test-retest: mean difference between measurements (95% limits of agreement) | 0.07 (–0.82 to 0.97) (n = 150) | –0.02 (–0.90 to 0.86) (n = 123) | |
| Subscale 2: Personal continuity: care provider shows commitment | |||
| 1. This care provider contacts me when necessary without me having to ask him/her to do so | 3.08 (n = 236) | 3.27 (n = 184) | |
| 2. This care provider knows very well what I think is important when it comes to my care | 3.50 (n = 236) | 3.60 (n = 192) | |
| 3. This care provider maintains enough contact with me when I am seen by other care providers | 3.14 (n = 228) | 3.38 (n = 178) | |
| Total subscale score | 3.23 (n = 238) | 3.41 (n = 188) | |
| Patients with highest subscale score (ceiling effect), n(%) | 18 (6.7%) | 18 (6.7%) | |
| Patients with lowest subscale score (floor effect), n(%) | 11 (4.1%) | 7 (2.6%) | |
| Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) | 0.86 | 0.90 | |
| Test–retest: intraclass correlation coefficient (95% CI) | 0.79 (0.72 to 0.85) (n = 145) | 0.80 (0.72 to 0.86) (n = 117) | |
| Test–retest: mean difference between measurements (95% limits of agreement) | –0.04 (–1.31 to 1.23) (n = 145) | –0.10 (–1.27 to 1.06) (n = 117) | |
| Collaboration between care providers … | |||
| … within general practice | … within hospital/outpatient department | … in general practice and hospital/outpatient department | |
| Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| Subscale 3: Team/cross-boundary continuity | |||
| 1. These care providers pass on information to each other very well | 3.83 (n = 154) | 3.71 (n = 142) | 3.39 (n = 158) |
| 2. These care providers work together very well | 3.87 (n = 152) | 3.68 (n = 141) | 3.30 (n = 148) |
| 3. The care given by these care providers is well-connected | 3.83 (n = 151) | 3.68 (n = 140) | 3.33 (n = 149) |
| 4. These care providers always know very well what the other care providers have done | 3.67 (n = 144) | 3.50 (n = 139) | 3.12 (n = 147) |
| Total subscale score | 3.80 (n = 148) | 3.65 (n = 141) | 3.28 (n = 149) |
| Patients with highest subscale score (ceiling effect), n(%) | 19 (7.1) | 17 (6.3) | 10 (3.7) |
| Patients with lowest subscale score (floor effect), n(%) | 0 (0) | 5 (1.9) | 0 (0) |
| Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.95 |
| Test-retest: Intraclass correlation coefficient (95% CI) | 0.71 (0.58 to 0.81) (n = 77) | 0.71 (0.58 to 0.80) (n = 81) | 0.75 (0.64 to 0.83) (n = 90) |
| Test-retest: Mean difference between measurements (95% limits of agreement) | 0.11 (–1.02 to 1.24) (n = 77) 0.09 | (–1.30 to 1.48) (n = 81) | 0.02 (–1.14 to 1.18) (n = 90) |
Mean score (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree)