Continuity of care for older patients in family practice: how important is it?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence that continuity of primary care is important for older people with chronic diseases. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from January 1970 to June 2005 for original articles in English that examined the relationship between interpersonal continuity of patient care and health outcomes of people 50 years old and older. Articles found were reviewed and analyzed by both authors to assess the strength of study design and the quality of the evidence provided. STUDY SELECTION: We used the search terms "continuity of patient care," "elderly," "primary care," and "outcomes." Criteria from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care were used to assess the quality of studies; only studies providing levels I to III evidence were included in this review. SYNTHESIS: Of 7563 articles found, we chose 99 studies (and 27 other studies cited in them) by studying their abstracts. Assessment of these 126 studies indicated that only 5 were of good quality and relevant to the inquiry. Two of these 5 were randomized controlled trials, and 3 were observational studies. CONCLUSION: Although the literature on continuity of care generally suggests that continuity of interpersonal primary care is important and beneficial, specific evidence that it is beneficial for elderly people is scanty. There is a need for well designed studies to investigate this issue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".