ArticleBMJ open2026
Modifying continuity of care indices for adults with organ failure nearing the end of life: a retrospective population-based study in Ontario, Canada.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and describe the performance of two modified relational continuity of care indices for adults with organ failure nearing the end of life, addressing limitations of existing indices that penalise multispecialty physician care.
designPopulation-based retrospective study.
settingLinked routinely collected health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada.
participantsAdults aged ≥19 years who died between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022, with kidney failure on dialysis, advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and/or heart failure. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We adapted the Usual Provider of Care (UPC) and Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care (BB) indices to avoid penalising multispecialty physician care, resulting in the UPC-Team and BB-Team indices. Indices were calculated for the last 2 years of life (truncating the last month) using outpatient physician visits. Correlation coefficients were produced between the unmodified indices, the modified indices and outpatient healthcare utilisation.
resultsThe cohort included 199 035 individuals, with a median age of 79 years (P25, P75: 70, 86); 55.5% were male. The median modified continuity scores were higher than the unmodified scores (UPC=0.44 (0.32, 0.61), UPC-Team=0.79 (0.67, 0.89); BB=0.24 (0.15, 0.40), BB-Team=0.75 (0.52, 0.95)). The modified indices shared weaker correlations with outpatient healthcare use (ie, number of visits or specialists involved), compared with the unmodified indices.
conclusionsThe UPC-Team and BB-Team indices do not penalise patients for receiving multispecialty physician care, compared with the unmodified UPC and BB indices. The modified indices demonstrated more consistency in measuring continuity across patients with varying degrees of medical complexity and less correlation with outpatient healthcare use. Use of these indices is suggested to capture different aspects of relational continuity in the context of multispecialty care nearing the end of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.