Table 3.
Summary of the use of the ‘continuity of care’ concept among articles of Group 4 that researched continuity of care in non-communicable disease management, divided by the articles’ type and use of conceptual models (n = 11, two articles of same study)
| Characteristics | Total (n = 10) |
Intervention (n = 5) |
PHC model (n = 3) |
ICCC framework (n = 2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data collection level | ||||
| System | 4 (40%) | 4 (80%) | 0 | 0 |
| Providers | 1 (10%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (50%) |
| Patients | 5 (50%) | 1 (20%) | 3 (100%) | 1 (50%) |
| Access | 8 (80%) | 3 (60%) | 3 (100%) | 2 (100%) |
| Quality | 6 (60%) | 1 (20%) | 3 (100%) | 2 (100%) |
| Measurements | ||||
| Quantitative measure for CoCa | 8 (80%) | 5 (100%) | 3 (100%) | NA |
| Disease outcome | 4 (40%) | 4 (80%) | 0 | NA |
| Other outcomesb | 3 (30%) | 1 (20%) | 2 (67%) | NA |
| Intervention components for providers | ||||
| Training for providers | 5 (50%) | 3 (60%) | 2 (67%) | NA |
| Financial incentives | 3 (30%) | 2 (40%) | 1 (33%) | NA |
| Items of continuity of care | ||||
| Longitudinal care (over time) | 10 (100%) | 5 (100%) | 3 (100%) | 2 (100%) |
| Longitudinal care (consistency of personnel) | 6 (60%) | 4 (80%) | 2 (67%) | / |
| Patient–provider relationship | 6 (60%) | 2 (40%) | 2 (67%) | 2 (100%) |
| Coordinated care (across levels and disciplines) | 7 (70%) | 3 (60%) | 3 (100%) | 1 (50%) |
| Coordinated care (informational component) | 6 (60%) | 3 (60%) | 2 (67%) | 1 (50%) |
CoC continuity of care, ICCC innovative care for chronic conditions, NA not available, PHC primary healthcare
aExamples were clinic utilisation, Likert scale, Usual Provider Continuity Index, Continuity of Care Index
bExamples were satisfaction, cost and ‘subjective’ health improvement, and quality of life