Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Professional satisfaction in general practice: does it vary by size of community?
    McGrail, MR ; Humphreys, JS ; Scott, A ; Joyce, CM ; Kalb, G (WILEY, 2010-07-19)
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the level of professional satisfaction of Australian general practitioners varies according to community size and location. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional, population-level national survey using results for a cohort of 3906 GPs (36% were "rural" participants) from the first wave of a longitudinal study of the Australian medical workforce, conducted between June and November 2008. Geographical differences in levels of professional satisfaction were examined using five community size categories: metropolitan, > or = 1 million residents; regional centre, 50,000-999,999; medium-large rural, 10,000-49,999; small rural, 2500-9999; and very small rural, < 2500. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Level of professional satisfaction expressed by GPs working in different sized communities with respect to various job aspects. RESULTS: Professional satisfaction of GPs did not differ by community size for most aspects of the job. Overall satisfaction was high, at about 85% across all community sizes. Satisfaction with remuneration was slightly higher in smaller rural towns, even though the hours worked there were less predictable. Professional satisfaction with freedom of choosing work method, variety of work, working conditions, opportunities to use abilities, amount of responsibility, and colleagues was very high across all community sizes, while difficulties with arranging locums and the stress of running the practice were commonly reported by GPs in all community sizes. CONCLUSIONS: GPs working in different sized communities in Australia express similar levels of satisfaction with most professional aspects of their work.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    The "Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL)" longitudinal survey - Protocol and baseline data for a prospective cohort study of Australian doctors' workforce participation
    Joyce, CM ; Scott, A ; Jeon, S-H ; Humphreys, J ; Kalb, G ; Witt, J ; Leahy, A (BIOMED CENTRAL LTD, 2010-02-25)
    BACKGROUND: While there is considerable research on medical workforce supply trends, there is little research examining the determinants of labour supply decisions for the medical workforce. The "Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL)" study investigates workforce participation patterns and their determinants using a longitudinal survey of Australian doctors. It aims to generate evidence to support developing effective policy responses to workforce issues such as shortages and maldistribution. This paper describes the study protocol and baseline cohort, including an analysis of response rates and response bias. METHODS/DESIGN: MABEL is a prospective cohort study. All Australian doctors undertaking clinical work in 2008 (n = 54,750) were invited to participate, and annual waves of data collections will be undertaken until at least 2011. Data are collected by paper or optional online version of a questionnaire, with content tailored to four sub-groups of clinicians: general practitioners, specialists, specialists in training, and hospital non-specialists. In the baseline wave, data were collected on: job satisfaction, attitudes to work and intentions to quit or change hours worked; a discrete choice experiment examining preferences and trade-offs for different types of jobs; work setting; workload; finances; geographic location; demographics; and family circumstances. DISCUSSION: The baseline cohort includes 10,498 Australian doctors, representing an overall response rate of 19.36%. This includes 3,906 general practitioners, 4,596 specialists, 1,072 specialists in training, and 924 hospital non-specialists. Respondents were more likely to be younger, female, and to come from non-metropolitan areas, the latter partly reflecting the effect of a financial incentive on response for doctors in remote and rural areas. Specialists and specialists in training were more likely to respond, whilst hospital non-specialists were less likely to respond. The distribution of hours worked was similar between respondents and data from national medical labour force statistics. The MABEL survey provides a large, representative cohort of Australian doctors. It enables investigation of the determinants of doctors' decisions about how much, where and in what circumstances they practice, and of changes in these over time. MABEL is intended to provide an important resource for policy makers and other stakeholders in the Australian medical workforce.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    DO REGIONAL PRIMARY-CARE ORGANISATIONS INFLUENCE PRIMARY-CARE PERFORMANCE? A DYNAMIC PANEL ESTIMATION
    Scott, A ; Coote, W (WILEY, 2010-06)
    The role of regional primary-care organizations (PCOs) in health-care systems is not well understood. This is the first study to attempt to isolate the effect of regional PCOs on primary-care performance. We examine Divisions of General Practice in Australia, which were established in 1992. A unique Division-level panel data set is used to examine the effect of Divisions, and their activities, on various aspects of primary-care performance. Dynamic panel estimation is used to account for state dependence and the endogeneity of Divisions' activities. The results show that Divisions were more likely to have influenced general practice infrastructure than clinical performance in diabetes, asthma and cervical screening. The effect of specific Division activities, such as providing support for practice nurses and IT support, was not directly related to changes in the level of general practice performance. Specific support in the areas of diabetes and asthma was associated with general practice performance, but this was due to reverse causality and the effect of unobservable factors, rather than the direct effect of Divisions.