Cited by 644Primary Care and Health OutcomesPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareChronic Disease Management Strategies

The association between continuity of care and outcomes: a systematic and critical review

Van Walraven, Carl, Oake, Natalie, Jennings, Alison, Forster, Alan J.·2010·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

Background Numerous studies have tried to determine the association between continuity and outcomes. Studies doing so must actually measure continuity. If continuity and outcomes are measured concurrently, their association can only be determined with time‐dependent methods. Objective To identify and summarize all methodologically studies that measure the association between continuity of care and patient outcomes. Methods We searched MEDLINE database (1950–2008) and hand‐searched to identify studies that tried to associate continuity and outcomes. English studies were included if they: actually measured continuity; determined the association of continuity with patient outcomes; and properly accounted for the relative timing of continuity and outcome measures. Results A total of 139 English language studies tried to measure the association between continuity and outcomes but only 18 studies (12.9%) met methodological criteria. All but two studies measured provider continuity and used health utilization or patient satisfaction as the outcome. Eight of nine high‐quality studies found a significant association between increased continuity and decreased health utilization including hospitalization and emergency visits. Five of seven studies found improved patient satisfaction with increased continuity. Conclusions These studies validate the belief that increased provider continuity is associated with improved patient outcomes and satisfaction. Further research is required to determine whether information or management continuity improves outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01235.x

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Walraven, C., Oake, N., Jennings, A., & Forster, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-06-11
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
947-956
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
OpenAlex
W1559305369
Cited by
644
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 11
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
continuity of care, provider continuity, patient outcomes, health care utilization, hospitalization, emergency department visits, patient satisfaction, information continuity, management continuity, time-dependent analysis
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Continuity of Patient Care, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review