4.3 Article

Immigrant and native regular general practitioners in Norway. A comparative registry-based observational study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 93-99

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/13814788.2013.823600

关键词

immigrant; family practice; case-mix; primary care; Norway

资金

  1. Norwegian Medical Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: More than 10% of the population and nearly 20% of all general practitioners (GPs) in Norway have an immigrant background. There are reasons to believe that immigrant GPs have different demographic characteristic and serve different populations than native GPs. Objectives: To describe the characteristics of the lists and population subscribed to immigrant GPs in Norway and compare them with those of Norwegian-born GPs. Methods: Immigrant GPs were defined as persons born abroad with both parents from abroad. Two national registers were linked with information about all inhabitants and GPs in Norway in 2008: the GPs Database, and the National Population Register. Logistic regression was used to study the influence of the GP's immigrant background on different characteristics. Results: Compared to native GPs, immigrant GPs are younger, more often women, and more frequently work alone and in rural areas. GPs with immigrant background have a higher proportion of immigrant patients (OR = 3.2; 95% CI: 2.7-3.8), not only from their own culture, but also from other cultures, and this proportion increases over time. Immigrant GPs have more difficulties recruiting patients compared to their native colleagues (OR = 0.3; 95% CI: 0.3-0.4 for having closed lists), but this difference seems to diminish over time. There are, however, substantial differences between immigrant GPs from different areas of the world. Conclusion: The characteristics of the populations assigned to GPs with or without immigrant background are different. This should be taken into account when studying differences between immigrant and native GPs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据