CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 331Primary Care and Health OutcomesHealthcare Systems and TechnologyHospital Admissions and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Primary medical care continuity and patient mortality: a systematic review

Open access
Baker, Richard, Freeman, George K, Haggerty, Jeannie L, Bankart, M John, Nockels, Keith H·2020·British Journal of General Practice
DOI 10.3399/bjgp20x712289PMC PMC7425204
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: A 2018 review into continuity of care with doctors in primary and secondary care concluded that mortality rates are lower with higher continuity of care. Aim: This association was studied further to elucidate its strength and how causative mechanisms may work, specifically in the field of primary medical care. Design and setting: Systematic review of studies published in English or French from database and source inception to July 2019. Method: Original empirical quantitative studies of any design were included, from MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, OpenGrey, and the library catalogue of the New York Academy of Medicine for unpublished studies. Selected studies included patients who were seen wholly or mostly in primary care settings, and quantifiable measures of continuity and mortality. Results: Thirteen quantitative studies were identified that included either cross-sectional or retrospective cohorts with variable periods of follow-up. Twelve of these measured the effect on all-cause mortality; a statistically significant protective effect of greater care continuity was found in nine, absent in two, and in one effects ranged from increased to decreased mortality depending on the continuity measure. The remaining study found a protective association for coronary heart disease mortality. Improved clinical responsibility, physician knowledge, and patient trust were suggested as causative mechanisms, although these were not investigated. Conclusion: This review adds reduced mortality to the demonstrated benefits of there being better continuity in primary care for patients. Some patients may benefit more than others. Further studies should seek to elucidate mechanisms and those patients who are likely to benefit most. Despite mounting evidence of its broad benefit to patients, relationship continuity in primary care is in decline — decisive action is required from policymakers and practitioners to counter this.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3399/bjgp20x712289

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Ridd MJ Santos Ferreira DL Montgomery AA Patient–doctor continuity and diagnosis of cancer: electronic medical records study in general practice Br J Gen Pract 2015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X684829. · DOI
  2. Palmer B Hemmings N Rosen R Improving access and continuity in general practice: evidence review 2018 https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/improving-access-and-continuity-in-general-practice (accessed 24 Jul 2020).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–330 of 330

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Baker, R., Freeman, G. K., Haggerty, J. L., Bankart, M. J., & Nockels, K. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • McGill University (CA)
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Publisher
Royal College of General Practitioners
Published
2020-08-10
Volume
70
Issue
698
Pages
e600-e611
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
DOI
10.3399/bjgp20x712289
PMC
PMC7425204
OpenAlex
W3048946873
Cited by
331
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 8
FWCI
6.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0510-10025)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Leadership and Management › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Keywords
continuity of care, primary care, patient mortality, all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, relational continuity, physician knowledge, patient trust, clinical responsibility
MeSH terms
Continuity of Patient Care, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Secondary Care, Secondary Health Care

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