Design: Cross-sectional survey analysis, multivariable linear regression
Population: 837 adults aged ≥65 in three Berlin neighbourhoods
Primary outcome: Self-rated health on a five-point scale
Effect: Continuity with same GP b = 0.008 (95% CI 0.002–0.015)

The Ageing Well study interviewed 837 adults aged 65 or over in three Berlin neighbourhoods. Continuity was measured by how long they had attended the same practice and the same GP; self-rated health was a single five-point question. Models adjusted for age, gender, social status, lifetime illness, depression and anxiety.

Most participants (84.7%) used a GP as their usual source of care. Longer continuity with the same GP was associated with better self-rated health, but the effect was small (b = 0.008 per unit, 95% CI 0.002–0.015). Lifetime illness explained the most variation; depressive symptoms were linked to poorer, and higher social status to better, self-rated health.

Continuity has been linked to lower mortality and fewer admissions elsewhere. This cross-sectional study suggests a single self-rated health question is too blunt to show what continuity does, rather than that continuity does little.

Personal continuity with one GP remains worth protecting for older patients with multiple conditions.
Self-rated health is a blunt measure of continuity's benefit; other studies link continuity to fewer admissions.
Depressive symptoms were strongly linked to poorer self-rated health; screen for them in older patients.
Where lists are shared, consider named-GP arrangements for those with the most complex needs.

Why it matters

It is a reminder that the benefits of continuity may not show on the measures most easily collected.

The statistics, in plain English

A coefficient of 0.008 means self-rated health rose by a tiny amount for each unit of continuity. It is statistically significant but too small to matter on its own, and a cross-sectional design cannot show which came first.