Validation of 2 New Measures of Continuity of Care Based on Year-to-Year Follow-up With Known Providers of Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In a primary care context favoring group practices, we assessed the validity of 2 new continuity measures (both versions of known provider continuity, KPC) that capture the concentration of care over time from multiple physicians (multiple provider continuity, KPC-MP) or from the physician seen most often (personal provider continuity, KPC-PP). METHODS: Patients with diabetes or cardiovascular disease (N = 765) were approached in the waiting rooms of 28 primary care clinics in 3 regions of the province of Quebec, Canada; answered a survey questionnaire measuring relational continuity, interpersonal communication, coordination within the clinic, coordination with specialists, and overall coordination; and gave permission for their medical records to be reviewed and their medical services utilization data for the previous 2 years to be accessed to measure KPC. Using generalized linear mixed models, we assessed the association between KPC and the patients' responses. RESULTS: Among the 5 different patient-reported measures or their combination, KPC-MP was significantly related with overall coordination of care: for high continuity, the odds ratio (OR) = 2.02 (95% CI, 1.33-3.07), and for moderate continuity, OR = 1.61 (95% CI, 1.06-2.46). KPC-MP was also related with the combined continuity score: for high continuity, OR = 1.52 (95% CI, 1.11-2.09), and for moderate continuity, OR = 1.48 (95% CI, 1.10-2.00). KPC-PP was not significantly associated with any of the survey measures. CONCLUSIONS: The KPC-MP measure, based on readily available administrative data, is associated with patient-perceived overall coordination of care among multiple physicians. KPC measures are potentially a valuable and low-cost way to follow the effects of changes favoring group practice on continuity of care for entire populations. They are easy to replicate over time and across jurisdictions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".