To study (a) the covariation between patient reported experience measures (PREMs) and registered process measures of access and continuity when ranking providers in a primary care setting, and (b) whether registered process measures or PREMs provided more or less information about potential linkages between levels of access and continuity and explaining variables.

Access and continuity are important objectives in primary care. They can be measured through registered process measures or PREMs. These measures do not necessarily converge in terms of outcomes. Patient views are affected by factors not necessarily reflecting quality of services. Results from surveys are often uncertain due to low response rates, particularly in vulnerable groups. The quality of process measures, on the other hand, may be influenced by registration practices and are often more easy to manipulate. With increased transparency and use of quality measures for management and governance purposes, knowledge about the pros and cons of using different measures to assess the performance across providers are important.

Four regression models were developed with registered process measures and PREMs of access and continuity as dependent variables. Independent variables were characteristics of providers as well as geographical location and degree of competition facing providers. Data were taken from two large Swedish county councils.

Although ranking of providers is sensitive to the measure used, the results suggest that providers performing well with respect to one measure also tended to perform well with respect to the other. As process measures are easier and quicker to collect they may be looked upon as the preferred option. PREMs were better than process measures when exploring factors that contributed to variation in performance across providers in our study; however, if the purpose of comparison is continuous learning and development of services, a combination of PREMs and registered measures may be the preferred option. Above all, our findings points towards the importance of a pre-analysis of the measures in use; to explore the pros and cons if measures are used for different purposes before they are put into practice.

The present analysis evaluates the overall appreciation and implementation of an intervention, Project Tomato, designed to maintain fruit and vegetable intake in children aged 8–9 years.

A random sample of fifty-four English primary schools (658 children) were randomised to either the intervention group or the control. The intervention group received a multi-component programme delivered in school by teachers and items sent home for parents/children. Dietary measurements were collected at baseline and follow-up. The intervention participants completed questionnaires on the intervention materials, to identify implementation and appreciation of the intervention, and other environmental mechanisms.

Fifty-four primary schools were randomly selected, with twenty-seven schools allocated to the intervention group.

A total of 311 children received the intervention.

Implementation of the intervention was low, 21·3 % of school items and 56·0 % of home items were implemented. The intervention materials were well received by teachers, parents and children. Other mechanisms that may affect fruit and vegetable intake were explored. Children who ate their main meal with their parents 3–7 nights/week on average consumed 37·6 (95 % CI 9·8, 65·4) g more fruit and vegetables than children who ate with their parents 0–2 times/week.

Implementation of the trial components was poor. However, the results identified the importance of parental environment and mealtime structure on children's fruit and vegetable intake.