Journal article icon

Journal article

Implementing relational continuity in general practice—understanding who needs it, when, to what extent, how and why: a realist review protocol

Abstract:
INTRODUCTION: Relational continuity of care (RCC) refers to the sustained therapeutic relationship between a patient and a clinician, which fosters trust, enhances communication and facilitates the accumulation of knowledge about the patient. RCC is associated with enhanced patient outcomes, reduced hospital admissions, lower mortality rates, decreased healthcare costs and improved patient experience. Despite these benefits, reorganisations within the NHS and workforce challenges have led to an increased reliance on multidisciplinary and part-time working, resulting in fragmented care and a decline in RCC. Our study aims to explore who needs RCC, under what circumstances, to what extent and why, with the goal of informing optimal implementation strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a realist review to develop an evidence-based programme theory explaining the mechanisms underlying RCC, the populations that benefit most, the contextual factors influencing RCC and effective care models. Following Pawson's five iterative stages, we will: (1) Locate existing theories, (2) Search for relevant evidence, (3) Select appropriate articles, (4) Extract and organise data and (5) Synthesise findings to draw conclusions. A stakeholder advisory group, comprising policymakers, healthcare professionals, public contributors and patients, will be engaged throughout the process. We will adhere to Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) for realist reviews to ensure methodological rigor. DISSEMINATION AND ETHICS: Our findings will inform practical, evidence-based recommendations for optimising RCC within general practice. Outputs will include peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, plain English summaries, social media infographics, a short video and end-of-study events. Collaborations with stakeholders and public involvement will ensure both accessibility and impact. Ethical approval is not required for this review.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions

Access Document

Publisher copy:
10.1101/2025.04.15.25325890

Authors

More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-1521-2052
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-7791-8552
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0001-5558-8567


Publisher:
BMJ Publishing Group
Journal:
BMJ Open More from this journal
Volume:
15
Issue:
9
Pages:
e104081-e104081
Publication date:
2025-04-16
DOI:
EISSN:
2044-6055
ISSN:
2044-6055


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
2119822
Local pid:
pubs:2119822
Source identifiers:
W4414089608
Deposit date:
2026-11-03
ARK identifier:
This ORA record was generated from metadata provided by an external service. It has not been edited by the ORA Team.

Terms of use


Views and Downloads

Views and downloads will return soon






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP