4.6 Article

Sex of the GP-20 years on

期刊

MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA
卷 195, 期 4, 页码 192-196

出版社

AUSTRALASIAN MED PUBL CO LTD
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2011.tb03278.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Previous research with the Australian Morbidity and Treatment Survey (1990-1991) showed significant differences in general practitioner characteristics and patient mix of male and female GPs. Even after adjusting for these, it was seen that male and female GPs managed different types of medical conditions. The proportion of female GPs increased from 19.6% in 1990-1991 to 37.1% in 2009-2010. This study investigates whether differences remain two decades later. Design and setting: Analysis of 2009-2010 Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) data examining GP characteristics, patient encounter characteristics, patient reasons for encounter (RFE), problem types managed and management methods used, by GP sex. Whether GP sex was an independent predictor of problem types being managed, or management methods used, was tested using multiple logistic regressions and Poisson regression. Participants: 988 GPs recorded 98 800 GP patient encounters. Main outcome measure: Adjusted differences in clinical activity of male and female GPs. Results: After adjustment, compared with male GPs, females recorded more RFEs about general and unspecified issues and endocrine, female genital, pregnancy and family planning problems; and fewer concerning the musculoskeletal, respiratory, skin and male genital systems. Female GPs managed more general and unspecified, digestive, circulatory, psychological, endocrine, female genital and social problems; recorded nearly 20% more clinical treatments and referrals; recorded nearly 10% more imaging and pathology tests; and 4.3% fewer medications. Conclusions: After two decades, even with increased numbers of female GPs, the differences in problems managed by male and female GPs remain, and will probably continue. Female GPs use more resources per encounter, but may not use more resources in terms of annual patient care. MJA 2011; 195: 192-196

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

4.6
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