ArticleThe Medical journal of Australia2026
Continuity of Care in General Practice in Australia: A Whole-Of-Population Serial Cross-Sectional Study.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
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
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.