This study aimed to assess perceptions of continuity of care by patients from different socioeconomic areas using focus group interviews augmented by postal replies. Patients were randomly selected from two contrasting primary medical care locations: a middle class suburb and a less affluent suburb in Adelaide, South Australia. The Ethnograph was used to analyse the content of the interviews and postal responses. Analysis used the framework described by Curtis and Rogers in the USA and Freeman in the UK. The response rate was much lower from the lower socioeconomic group (5% focus group; 20% when postal replies included). They emphasized access factors and importance of records, and alleged situations where they were taken too casually and their problems were not dealt with. Those from the middle class area (response rate 25%) emphasized interpersonal ('art of care') factors and were more likely to use their presenting problem as a criterion to decide whether they needed to postpone the problem to a time when they could see their personal doctor. Focus groups can be useful evaluation tools in general practice, but oversampling of lower socioeconomic groups is needed. Continuity of care should be considered as an aid to consistent quality of care, rather than its essence. Well controlled intervention-outcome studies in different types of practice organization in differing socioeconomic situations will increase our understanding of continuity of care.