Table 1.

Description of the 5 cases in relation to the selection criteria

CHARACTERISTICCASE 1CASE 2CASE 3CASE 4CASE 5
Structure and resources
  • RegionRuralSuburbanSuburbanMetropolitanSuburban
  • PC modelPPFMGCHCPPFMG
  • GovernanceProfessionalPublicPublicProfessionalProfessional
  • Physician remunerationFFSSalarySalaryFFSFFS
  • No. of PC physicians/nurses5/17/210/123/07/1
Quantitative assessment*
  • Team Climate Inventory scoreHighAverageLowHighAverage
Technical quality of care
  • Episodic illnessAverageHighHighLowAverage
  • Chronic illness plus preventionHighAverageHighAverageHigh
Experience of care
  • Organizational accessHighHighAverageHighAverage
  • First-contact accessHighHighLowAverageAverage
  • ComprehensivenessHighAverageLowHighAverage
  • Contextual knowledge of patientsHighAverageAverageAverageHigh
  • Interpersonal communicationHighAverageAverageHighAverage
  • CoordinationAverageAverageHighAverageHigh
Characteristics of recruited patients
  • Mean age, y6359566165
  • Women, %5450655436
  • Consider themselves poor, %307141225
  • Physical functioning score§AverageHighAverageAverageAverage
  • Mental functioning score§AverageAverageHighLowHigh
  • CHC—community health centre, FFS—fee for service, FMG—family medicine group, PC—primary care, PP—private practice.

  • * High, average, and low values were defined in comparison to the mean for the 37 practices sampled in the quantitative component of the study (using t tests; P ≤ .05).

  • Technical quality of care was assessed from patient charts and administrative databases using validated quality indicators based on clinical practice guidelines.

  • Experience of care was measured using validated scales from patient questionnaires. Methodologic details are published elsewhere.4

  • § Physical and mental functioning scores were measured using the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey.20