Table 3 Summary of the use of the ‘continuity of care’ concept among articles of Group 4 that researched continuity of care in non-communicable disease management, divided by the articles’ type and use of conceptual models (n = 11, two articles of same study)
Characteristics | Total (n = 10) | Intervention (n = 5) | PHC model (n = 3) | ICCC framework (n = 2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Data collection level | ||||
System | 4 (40%) | 4 (80%) | 0 | 0 |
Providers | 1 (10%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (50%) |
Patients | 5 (50%) | 1 (20%) | 3 (100%) | 1 (50%) |
Access | 8 (80%) | 3 (60%) | 3 (100%) | 2 (100%) |
Quality | 6 (60%) | 1 (20%) | 3 (100%) | 2 (100%) |
Measurements | ||||
Quantitative measure for CoCa | 8 (80%) | 5 (100%) | 3 (100%) | NA |
Disease outcome | 4 (40%) | 4 (80%) | 0 | NA |
Other outcomesb | 3 (30%) | 1 (20%) | 2 (67%) | NA |
Intervention components for providers | ||||
Training for providers | 5 (50%) | 3 (60%) | 2 (67%) | NA |
Financial incentives | 3 (30%) | 2 (40%) | 1 (33%) | NA |
Items of continuity of care | ||||
Longitudinal care (over time) | 10 (100%) | 5 (100%) | 3 (100%) | 2 (100%) |
Longitudinal care (consistency of personnel) | 6 (60%) | 4 (80%) | 2 (67%) | / |
Patient–provider relationship | 6 (60%) | 2 (40%) | 2 (67%) | 2 (100%) |
Coordinated care (across levels and disciplines) | 7 (70%) | 3 (60%) | 3 (100%) | 1 (50%) |
Coordinated care (informational component) | 6 (60%) | 3 (60%) | 2 (67%) | 1 (50%) |