Skip to main content
. 2019 May 5;9(5):e028546. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028546

Table 4.

Determinants of quality of general practitioner (GP) follow-up care score* estimated by ordered logistic regression (clustered by sentinel general practices [SGP]), Belgian Network of SGP, Flanders, 2013–2016

Sum of quality indicators complied with P value Adjusted OR (95% CI)
0 1 2 3
n/N (%)
All 14/245 (5.7) 67/245 (27.4) 95/245 (38.8) 69/245 (28.2)
Patient age
 <65 13/209 (6.2) 63/209 (30.1) 84/209 (40.2) 49/209 (23.4) 0.001 Reference
 ≥65 1/36 (2.8) 4/36 (11.1) 11/36 (30.6) 20/36 (55.6) 4.09 (1.79 to 9.33)
GP–patient contact in month preceding attempt
 No 11/111 (9.9) 39/111 (35.1) 42/111 (37.8) 19/111 (17.1) 0.000 Reference
 Yes 3/134 (2.2) 28/134 (20.9) 53/134 (39.6) 50/134 (37.3) 1.97 (1.13 to 3.43)
Patient had depression
 No 10/99 (10.1) 30/99 (30.3) 41/99 (41.1) 18/99 (18.2) 0.001 Reference
 Yes 2/136 (1.5) 33/136 (24.3) 52/136 (36.8) 51/136 (37.5) 1.96 (1.14 to 3.37)
Urbanisation of the SGP location
 Urban area 9/157 (5.7) 50/157 (31.9) 63/157 (40.1) 35/157 (22.3) 0.032 Reference
 Suburban area 5/88 (5.7) 17/88 (19.3) 32/88 (36.4) 34/88 (38.6) 2.34 (1.13 to 4.82)

The model initially included independent baseline and follow-up variables (including time span between event and reporting of second follow-up form) that were found to be associated univariately at the (borderline) 0.05 level with the dependent variable.

*The quality of follow-up care score is the sum of three indicators: GP–patient contact in follow-up period, GP contact with patient proxies and scheduling of patient follow-up appointments.

P, p value of univariate association.