Dataset Information

What explains the regional variation in the use of general practitioners in Australia?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Regional variation in the use of health care services is widespread. Identifying and understanding the sources of variation and how much variation is unexplained can inform policy interventions to improve the efficiency and equity of health care delivery. METHODS:We examined the regional variation in the use of general practitioners (GPs) using data from the Social Health Atlas of Australia by Statistical Local Area (SLAs). 756 SLAs were included in the analysis. The outcome variable of GP visits per capita by SLAs was regressed on a series of demand-side factors measuring population health status and demographic characteristics and supply-side factors measuring access to physicians. Each group of variables was entered into the model sequentially to assess their explanatory share on regional differences in GP usage. RESULTS:Both demand-side and supply-side factors were found to influence the frequency of GP visits. Specifically, areas in urban regions, areas with a higher percentage of the population who are obese, who have profound or severe disability, and who hold concession cards, and areas with a smaller percentage of the population who reported difficulty in accessing services have higher GP usage. The availability of more GPs led to higher use of GP services while the supply of more specialists reduced use. 30.56% of the variation was explained by medical need. Together, both need-related and supply-side variables accounted for 32.24% of the regional differences as measured by the standard deviation of adjusted GP-consultation rate. CONCLUSIONS:There was substantial variation in GP use across Australian regions with only a small proportion of them being explained by population health needs, indicating a high level of unexplained clinical variation. Supply factors did not add a lot to the explanatory power. There was a lot of variation that was not attributable to the factors we could observe. This could be due to more subtle aspects of population need or preferences and therefore warranted. However, it could be due to practice patterns or other aspects of supply and be unexplained. Future work should try to explain the remaining unexplained variation.

SUBMITTER: Mu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7168818 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What explains the regional variation in the use of general practitioners in Australia?

Mu Chunzhou C Hall Jane J

BMC health services research 20200419 1

<h4>Background</h4>Regional variation in the use of health care services is widespread. Identifying and understanding the sources of variation and how much variation is unexplained can inform policy interventions to improve the efficiency and equity of health care delivery.<h4>Methods</h4>We examined the regional variation in the use of general practitioners (GPs) using data from the Social Health Atlas of Australia by Statistical Local Area (SLAs). 756 SLAs were included in the analysis. The ou ...[more]

PMID: 32306952

Similar Datasets

Project description:Chiropractic and osteopathy form a significant part of the healthcare setting in rural and regional Australia, with national registration of practitioners, public subsidies for services and high utilisation by the Australian public. However, despite their significant role in rural and regional Australia, there has been little exploration of the interface between chiropractic and osteopathy and conventional primary health care practitioners in this area. The study aim was to examine the referral practices and factors that underlie referral to chiropractors and osteopaths by rural and regional Australian general practitioners (GPs), by drawing on a sample of GPs in rural and regional New South Wales.A 27-item questionnaire was sent to all 1486 GPs currently practising in rural and regional Divisions of General Practice in New South Wales, Australia.A total of 585 GPs responded to the questionnaire, with 49 questionnaires returned as "no longer at this address" (response rate: 40.7%). The majority of GPs (64.1%) referred to a chiropractor or osteopath at least a few times per year while 21.7% stated that they would not refer to a chiropractor or osteopath under any circumstances. Patients asking the GP about CAM (OR=3.59; CI: 1.12, 11.55), GP's use of CAM practitioners as a major source of information (OR=4.39; 95% CI: 2.04, 9.41), lack of other treatment options (OR=2.41; 95% CI: 1.18, 5.12), access to a wide variety of medical specialists (OR=12.5; 95% CI: 2.4, 50.0), GP's belief in the efficacy of chiropractic and osteopathy services (OR=3.39; 95% CI: 2.19, 5.25) and experiencing positive results from patients using these services previously (OR=1.67; CI: 1.02, 2.75) were all independently predictive of increased referral to chiropractic and osteopathy services amongst the rural GPs.There is a significant interface between chiropractic and osteopathy and Australian rural and regional general practice in New South Wales. Although there is generally high support for chiropractic and osteopathy among Australian GPs, this was not absolute and the heterogeneity of responses suggests that there remain tensions between the professions. The significant interface between chiropractic and osteopathy may be due in part to the inclusion of these professions in the publicly subsidised national healthcare delivery scheme. The significant impact of chiropractic and osteopathy and general practice in rural and regional Australian healthcare delivery should serve as an impetus for increased research into chiropractic and osteopathy practice, policy and regulation in these areas.

Project description:BackgroundNaturopathy forms an increasingly significant part of the Australian healthcare setting, with high utilisation of naturopaths by the Australian public and a large therapeutic footprint in rural and regional Australia. However, despite these circumstances, there has been little exploration of the interface between naturopathy providers and conventional primary health care practitioners in rural and regional Australia. The study reported here examined the referral practices and factors that underlie referral to naturopaths amongst a sample of rural and regional Australian general practitioners (GPs).MethodsA 27-item questionnaire was sent to all 1,486 GPs currently practising in rural and regional Divisions of General Practice in New South Wales, Australia.ResultsA total of 585 GPs responded to the questionnaire, with 49 questionnaires returned as "no longer at this address" (response rate: 40.7%). One-quarter of GPs (25.8%) referred to a naturopath at least a few times per year while nearly half (48.8%) stated that they would not refer to a naturopath under any circumstances. GPs were more likely to refer to a naturopath if the GP: was not initially from a rural area (OR=1.78; 95% CI: 0.95, 3.33); believes in the efficacy of naturopathy (OR=5.62; 95% CI: 2.42, 11.36); has seen positive results from naturopathy previously (OR=2.61; 95% CI: 1.35, 5.05); perceives a lack of other treatment options for their patient (OR=5.25; 95% CI: 2.42; 11.36); uses peer-reviewed literature as their major source of CAM information (OR=3.03; 95% CI: 1.65, 5.55); uses CAM practitioners as a major source of CAM information (OR=6.09; 95% CI: 2.91, 12.72); and does not have an existing relationship with any CAM provider (OR=3.03; 95% CI: 1.53, 6.25).ConclusionsThere is little interaction (both via referrals as well as the development of professional relationships) between the naturopathic and GP communities in rural and regional Australia, with significant levels of both support and opposition for naturopathic referral amongst GPs. The significant presence and high utilisation of naturopathy in rural primary health care, which appears to work in parallel to conventional medical care rather than in conjunction with it, should serve as an impetus for increased research into naturopathy practice, policy and regulation in rural and regional health.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization recommends vaccination rates of 75% against seasonal influenza for patients over 65 years old. In the 2013/2014 season, the German vaccination rates ranged between 14 and 65%. This study aimed to compare the attitudes, personal characteristics and vaccination behaviours of general practitioners (GPs) in regions with high and low vaccination rates in Germany.MethodsIn May 2016, a questionnaire was sent to 1594 GPs practising in 16 districts with the highest and the lowest vaccination rates in Western and Eastern Germany as described by the Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care in Germany for the 2013/2014 season. Descriptive statistics and multiple regression analyses were computed to identify potential factors associated with high vaccination rates.ResultsA total response rate of 32% (515/1594 participants) was observed in the study. GPs reported their attitudes towards vaccination in general and vaccination against influenza as mostly 'very positive' (80%, n = 352 and 65%, n = 288, respectively). GPs practising in regions with low vaccination rates reported their attitudes towards vaccinations in general (p = 0.004) and towards influenza vaccination (p = 0.001) more negatively than their colleagues from regions with high vaccination rates. Multiple logistic regression identified an increasing influence of year-dependent changing efficiency on GPs' influenza rates as the strongest factor for predicting GPs from highly vaccinating regions (OR = 4.31 [1.12-16.60]), followed by the patient's vaccination refusal despite GP advice due to already receiving a vaccination from another physician (OR = 3.20 [1.89-5.43]) and vaccination information gathering through medical colleagues (OR = 2.26 [1.19-4.29]).ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest a correlation between GPs' attitudes and regional vaccination rates. Beneath GPs' individual attitudes, the regional attitude patterns of patients, colleagues and medical assistants surrounding those GPs seem decisive and should be integrated into future campaigns to increase vaccination rates at a regional level.

Project description:Occupational stressors are commonly encountered in small animal veterinary practice and have been associated with burnout. The working context of veterinarians differs by specialty, and this can potentially lead to variable exposures to risk factors for burnout. The aim of this study was to explore differences in demographic and working conditions of veterinary general practitioners (GPs) and emergency practitioners (EPs) to compare exposure to different potential stressors. An anonymous, online survey was administered to veterinary GPs and EPs practicing in metropolitan regions of Australia. In total, 320 participant responses were analyzed (n = 237, 74.2% GPs and n = 83, 25.9% EPs). Significant differences (P < 0.05) in the demographics and work-related exposures were found between the two groups. GPs were found to be older than EPs with a greater number of years of experience in their field (P < 0.001). Most veterinary GPs worked only day shifts (207/236, 87.7%); where EPs worked a greater variety of shift patterns, with "only day shifts" being the least common shift pattern (P < 0.001). Most GPs worked a set and predictable roster pattern (195/236, 83.6%), while most EPs did not (51/83, 61.5%). EPs worked more weekends and public holidays (P < 0.001). The EP group performed more hours of work each week but worked less overtime. The main contributing factors for overtime were scheduling factors for GPs and staffing issues for EPs. EPs were commonly not able to take meal-breaks and GPs' meal-breaks were commonly interrupted by work. EPs were more frequently exposed to patient death, euthanasia (including for financial reasons), emotionally distressed clients and delivering negative news (P < 0.001). Both groups indicated that most work environments were collegiate and supportive, and a minority reported toxic colleagues (11.8%) or management teams (26.9%). Just under one-half of respondents reported having witnessed or experienced workplace bullying. Of our respondent group, 52.0% (166/319) were not satisfied with their remuneration. Desire to leave their principal area of practice was prevalent among this survey group (192/319, 60.2%) with approximately one-third considering leaving the veterinary profession. We discuss the implications of these workplace factors, including mitigation strategies.

Dataset Information

What explains the regional variation in the use of general practitioners in Australia?

Publications

What explains the regional variation in the use of general practitioners in Australia?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets