The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Continuity of care in general practice: effect on patient satisfaction.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of continuity of care on patient satisfaction with consultations. DESIGN: Direct and episodic specific evaluation of patient satisfaction with recent consultation. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: A representative sample of 3918 Norwegian primary care patients were asked to evaluate their consultations by filling in a questionnaire. The response rate was 78%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The patient's overall satisfaction with the consultation was rated on a six point scale. Continuity of care was recorded as the duration and intensity of the present patient-doctor relationship and as patients' perception of the present doctor being their personal doctor or not. RESULTS: The multivariate analysis indicated that an overall personal patient-doctor relationship increased the odds of the patient being satisfied with the consultation sevenfold (95% confidence interval 4.9 to 9.9) as compared with consultations where no such relationships existed. The duration of the patient-doctor relationship had a weak but significant association with patient satisfaction, while the intensity of contacts showed no such association. CONCLUSION: Personal, continuous care is linked with patient satisfaction. If patient satisfaction is accepted as an integral part of quality health care, reinforcing personal care may be one way of increasing this quality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Cited by
Organizing Care for Patients with Chronic Illness
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., & Korff, M. V. (1996) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3350391 · Cited by 2,877
Little, P., Everitt, H., Williamson, I., Warner, G., Moore, M., Gould, C., Ferrier, K., & Payne, S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7284.468 · Cited by 766
Sandvik, H., Hetlevik, Ø., Blinkenberg, J., & Hunskaar, S. (2022) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp.2021.0340 · Cited by 333
Continuity of Primary Care: To Whom Does It Matter and When?
Nutting, P. A. (2003) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.63 · Cited by 316
An exploration of the value of the personal doctor-patient relationship in general practice.
(2001) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 195
Metadata
- Authors
- Hjortdahl, P., & Laerum, E.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1992-05-16
- Volume
- 304
- Issue
- 6837
- Pages
- 1287-1290
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2011667111
- Cited by
- 405
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Continuity of care in general practice: effect on patient satisfaction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.304.6837.1287
- The paper
- Hjortdahl, P., & Laerum, E. (1992). Continuity of care in general practice: effect on patient satisfaction. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.304.6837.1287
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.