Table 4

Determinants of quality of general practitioner (GP) follow-up care score* estimated by ordered logistic regression (clustered by sentinel general practices [SGP]), Belgian Network of SGP, Flanders, 2013–2016

Sum of quality indicators complied withP valueAdjusted OR (95% CI)
0123
n/N (%)
All14/245 (5.7)67/245 (27.4)95/245 (38.8)69/245 (28.2)
Patient age
 <6513/209 (6.2)63/209 (30.1)84/209 (40.2)49/209 (23.4)0.001Reference
 ≥651/36 (2.8)4/36 (11.1)11/36 (30.6)20/36 (55.6)4.09 (1.79 to 9.33)
GP–patient contact in month preceding attempt
 No11/111 (9.9)39/111 (35.1)42/111 (37.8)19/111 (17.1)0.000Reference
 Yes3/134 (2.2)28/134 (20.9)53/134 (39.6)50/134 (37.3)1.97 (1.13 to 3.43)
Patient had depression
 No10/99 (10.1)30/99 (30.3)41/99 (41.1)18/99 (18.2)0.001Reference
 Yes2/136 (1.5)33/136 (24.3)52/136 (36.8)51/136 (37.5)1.96 (1.14 to 3.37)
Urbanisation of the SGP location
 Urban area9/157 (5.7)50/157 (31.9)63/157 (40.1)35/157 (22.3)0.032Reference
 Suburban area5/88 (5.7)17/88 (19.3)32/88 (36.4)34/88 (38.6)2.34 (1.13 to 4.82)
  • The model initially included independent baseline and follow-up variables (including time span between event and reporting of second follow-up form) that were found to be associated univariately at the (borderline) 0.05 level with the dependent variable.

  • *The quality of follow-up care score is the sum of three indicators: GP–patient contact in follow-up period, GP contact with patient proxies and scheduling of patient follow-up appointments.

  • P, p value of univariate association.