Continuity-of-Care Measures
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
For a long period of time, continuity of care has been recognized as a major aspect of the quality of primary health care and a set of potential determinants (medical, socioeconomic, and, notably, policy variables) and a potential positive or negative effect is recognized.
Abstract
For a long period of time, continuity of care has been recognized as a major aspect of the quality of primary health care. Some scholars operate with comprehensive notions of continuity encompassing a variety of dimensions of primary care (see, for example, Wall1 and further references in that paper). Another line of research, represented by Steinwachs,2 Eriksson and Mattsson,3 and others, focuses on design and assessment of quantitative measures of various dimensions of continuity. The latter approach views continuity as an intermediate variable, lying between a set of potential determinants (medical, socioeconomic, and, notably, policy variables) and a potential positive or negative effect (e.g., better patient compliance with prescriptions, or delayed referral in certain cases). Typically, stressing determinants of continuity would be appropriate for evaluations (such as that by Mattsson and Westman4) of administrative reform. Such evaluative use of measures of continuity could be based on adopting continuity as a policy goal per se. This is not unreasonable in situations like the Swedish context, in which attitude surveys report a keen public interest in continuity of care.5 Alternatively, it could be based on empiric studies linking high conti
