2020
DOI: 10.21203/rs.2.15575/v4
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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 … Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 19 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In Australia, like many countries with universal health insurance, PHC service organisation and delivery varies across smallareas [12][13][14]. There is also evidence that service delivery characteristics, such as supply of primary care providers, scope of practice and after-hours arrangements, are associated with primary care service use [15][16][17] and perceived quality-of-care [18]. However, these findings were based on aggregated area-level data or examined practice-level service characteristics and individual outcomes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Australia, like many countries with universal health insurance, PHC service organisation and delivery varies across smallareas [12][13][14]. There is also evidence that service delivery characteristics, such as supply of primary care providers, scope of practice and after-hours arrangements, are associated with primary care service use [15][16][17] and perceived quality-of-care [18]. However, these findings were based on aggregated area-level data or examined practice-level service characteristics and individual outcomes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%