Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42310274›Full record

ArticleThe Medical journal of Australia2026

Continuity of Care in General Practice in Australia: A Whole-Of-Population Serial Cross-Sectional Study.

Jennifer Welsh, Rachel Freeman-Robinson, Danielle C Butler, Rachael Eddowes, Amelia Yazidjoglou, Angus Douglas, Kirsty A Douglas, Nina Lazarevic, Hsei-Di Law, Grace Joshy and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Medical journal of Australia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Jennifer WelshNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4415-5920
Rachel Freeman-RobinsonNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Danielle C ButlerNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Rachael EddowesNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Amelia YazidjoglouNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4406-368X
Angus DouglasNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Kirsty A DouglasSchool of Medicine and Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Nina LazarevicNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6463-6719
Hsei-Di LawNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Grace JoshyNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0718-6368
Susan TrevenarNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Tsheten TshetenNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Adrian WebsterAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Michael FrostAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Bernice CropperAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Sally Hall DykgraafSchool of Medicine and Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8532-1086
Christine B PhillipsSchool of Medicine and Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5602-3664
Emily BanksNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Rosemary J KordaNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Funding

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian GovernmentMedical Research Future Fund 2006309National Health and Medical Research Council 1136128
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo quantify continuity of care in general practice in the Australian population, including variation according to patient characteristics and over time, to support ongoing policy reforms directed towards improving general practice care. DESIGN AND

settingRepeated cross-sectional analyses of linked whole-of-population data from the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the Medicare Consumer Directory and the Census of Population and Housing (2021).

participantsContinuity was assessed in people with at least four general practitioner visits in a 2-year period (about 80% of the population).

main outcome measureRelational continuity of care in general practice, measured with the Usual Provider Index, for eight overlapping 2-year periods (2016-2017 to 2022-2023). High continuity was defined as having ≥ 70% of visits with one provider.

resultsAbout one-third of the population had high continuity of care (range: 31.3% in 2018-2019 to 37.2% in 2020-2021). After adjustment for age, sex and remoteness, high continuity was more common among those with greater care needs, including those who were older (≥ 70 years vs. 0-14 years: adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 1.88) or with health conditions (e.g., ≥ 3 vs. none: aPR, 1.14) and those who were living in more disadvantaged areas (e.g., most vs. least disadvantaged: aPR, 1.22), born overseas (e.g., born in Southern or Eastern Europe vs. born in Australia or New Zealand: aPR, 1.20) or not proficient in English (aPR, 1.29). However, it was less common for females compared with males (aPR, 0.90) and those living remotely (e.g., very remote vs. major cities: aPR, 0.43).

conclusionWhile most people in Australia do not receive continuous care in general practice with a specific provider, those with greater healthcare needs are more likely to. With ongoing policy reforms, monitoring continuity of care may provide insights into the consequences for quality of care.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareGeneral PracticeAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle Agedcontinuity of patient caregeneral practicehealthcare disparitieshealth policy

Identifiers

PMID42310274
PMCPMC13275638

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.