↓ Skip to main content

Patients who do not receive continuity of care from their general practitioner--are they a vulnerable group?

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, March 1995
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Patients who do not receive continuity of care from their general practitioner--are they a vulnerable group?
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, March 1995
Pubmed ID
Authors

K G Sweeney, D P Gray

Abstract

Continuity of care is much valued by general practitioners but little is known about those patients who do not receive continuity of care. This study set out to identify and describe a group of patients who did not receive continuity of care from the general practitioner with whom they were personally registered. A total of 110 patients (71 female and 39 male) were identified, who did not receive continuity of care, defined as four consecutive face to face consultations which did not take place with the doctor with whom they were registered. This group was compared with an age and sex matched control group who did receive continuity of care, using general practice records, for demographic characteristics, morbidity, relationship problems, number of 'difficult' consultations, failure to attend appointments, and use of an accident and emergency department and of open access clinics. Patients in the study group were more likely to be under the age of 65 years than all patients on the doctor's list. Study patients were more likely than control patients to be in social class 4 or 5 living in a council house. Patients in the study group were more likely than controls to be depressed. Women patients in the study group were more likely to suffer from vaginal discharge. Men patients in the study group were more likely to complain of non-cardiac chest pain. The study group had more marital problems, parent-child relationship problems, and problems involving violence in the family, as well as other relationship problems. Relationship problems included the relationship with the doctor, since a third of all the consultations in the study group were recorded as 'difficult', compared with 3% in the control group. The study group patients were more likely than controls not to attend appointments which they had made, to use the accident and emergency department repeatedly, and to have used other open access clinics. Lack of continuity of care is associated with some additional morbidity, an increased number of relationship problems, 'difficult' consultations, and non-attendances, and an increase in the use of open access clinics. The characteristics of this group of patients represent a syndrome which merits further study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Other 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 46%
Psychology 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 14 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,000,783
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#978
of 4,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#646
of 24,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 24,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them