Cited by 28Primary Care and Health OutcomesPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareHealthcare Systems and Technology

Management Continuity from the Patient Perspective: Comparison of Primary Healthcare Evaluation Instruments

Open access
Haggerty, Jeannie, Burge, Frederick, Pineault, Raynald, Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique, Bouharaoui, Fatima, Beaulieu, Christine, Santor, Darcy, Lévesque, Jean-Frédéric·2011·Healthcare Policy | Politiques de Santé

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Management continuity, operationally defined as "the extent to which services delivered by different providers are timely and complementary such that care is experienced as connected and coherent," is a core attribute of primary healthcare. Continuity, as experienced by the patient, is the result of good care coordination or integration. OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into how well management continuity is measured in validated coordination or integration subscales of primary healthcare instruments. METHOD: Relevant subscales from the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS), the Primary Care Assessment Tool - Short Form (PCAT-S), the Components of Primary Care Instrument (CPCI) and the Veterans Affairs National Outpatient Customer Satisfaction Survey (VANOCSS) were administered to 432 adult respondents who had at least one healthcare contact with a provider other than their family physician in the previous 12 months. Subscales were examined descriptively, by correlation and factor analysis and item response theory analysis. Because the VANOCSS elicits coordination problems and is scored dichotomously, we used logistic regression to examine how evaluative subscales relate to reported problems. RESULTS: Most responses to the PCAS, PCAT-S and CPCI subscales were positive, yet 83% of respondents reported having one or more problems on the VANOCSS Overall Coordination subscale and 41% on the VANOCSS Specialist Access subscale. Exploratory factor analysis suggests two dist…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12927/hcpol.2011.22709

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Haggerty, J., Burge, F., Pineault, R., Beaulieu, M.-D., Bouharaoui, F., Beaulieu, C., Santor, D., & Lévesque, J.-F.
Venue
Healthcare Policy | Politiques de Santé
Published
2011-12-26
Volume
7
Issue
SP
Pages
139-153
ISSN
  • 1715-6572 (ISSN-L)
  • 1715-6580
OpenAlex
W4322700640
Cited by
27
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Healthcare policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
management continuity, care coordination, integrated care, primary care, patient perspectives, assessment instruments, Primary Care Assessment Tool, access to specialist care, care transitions, patient satisfaction

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