IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0042256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement Properties of Questionnaires Measuring Continuity of Care: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Annemarie A Uijen
  • Claire W Heinst
  • Francois G Schellevis
  • Wil JHM van den Bosch
  • Floris A van de Laar
  • Caroline B Terwee
  • Henk J Schers

Abstract

Background: Continuity of care is widely acknowledged as a core value in family medicine. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify the instruments measuring continuity of care and to assess the quality of their measurement properties. Methods: We did a systematic review using the PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases, with an extensive search strategy including ‘continuity of care’, ‘coordination of care’, ‘integration of care’, ‘patient centered care’, ‘case management’ and its linguistic variations. We searched from 1995 to October 2011 and included articles describing the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of instruments measuring one or more dimensions of continuity of care (1) care from the same provider who knows and follows the patient (personal continuity), (2) communication and cooperation between care providers in one care setting (team continuity), and (3) communication and cooperation between care providers in different care settings (cross-boundary continuity). We assessed the methodological quality of the measurement properties of each instrument using the COSMIN checklist. Results: We included 24 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 21 instruments. Ten instruments measured all three dimensions of continuity of care. Instruments were developed for different groups of patients or providers. For most instruments, three or four of the six measurement properties were assessed (mostly internal consistency, content validity, structural validity and construct validity). Six instruments scored positive on the quality of at least three of six measurement properties. Conclusions: Most included instruments have problems with either the number or quality of its assessed measurement properties or the ability to measure all three dimensions of continuity of care. Based on the results of this review, we recommend the use of one of the four most promising instruments, depending on the target population Diabetes Continuity of Care Questionnaire, Alberta Continuity of Services Scale-Mental Health, Heart Continuity of Care Questionnaire, and Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire.

Suggested Citation

  • Annemarie A Uijen & Claire W Heinst & Francois G Schellevis & Wil JHM van den Bosch & Floris A van de Laar & Caroline B Terwee & Henk J Schers, 2012. "Measurement Properties of Questionnaires Measuring Continuity of Care: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-14, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0042256
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042256
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042256&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0042256?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0042256. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.