D C Saltman1, A Mant. 1. School of Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Kensington.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: General practitioner-based research has been hampered by the poorly defined database and the cost of continuous updating of lists of practitioners. Little is known about the general practitioner workforce. Fresh awareness by health planners of the serious maldistribution of general practitioners has heightened the need for workforce planning. Integral to this is the availability of an accurate listing of general practitioners. DATA SOURCES: A CD-ROM Medline review of all surveys involving general practitioners which were conducted in Australia in the period 1983-1990 was performed. All general practitioner listings still existing at the end of the decade were identified. STUDY SELECTION: Nine listings considered for use as general practitioner databases. DATA EXTRACTION: Each listing was assessed in six ways--quality of information provided, availability for research purposes, cost, potential to provide the correct postal address, ability to identify general practitioners in active practice and comparative advantage over other lists. DATA SYNTHESIS: Each listing has limitations and advantages, with individual peculiarities and variable information relating to identifying characteristics of general practitioners. None was specifically created for research or workforce planning purposes. The Medical Provider File (formerly called the Central Register of Medical Practitioners) was the most used list. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a framework for the ideal database and avenues for its development.
OBJECTIVE: General practitioner-based research has been hampered by the poorly defined database and the cost of continuous updating of lists of practitioners. Little is known about the general practitioner workforce. Fresh awareness by health planners of the serious maldistribution of general practitioners has heightened the need for workforce planning. Integral to this is the availability of an accurate listing of general practitioners. DATA SOURCES: A CD-ROM Medline review of all surveys involving general practitioners which were conducted in Australia in the period 1983-1990 was performed. All general practitioner listings still existing at the end of the decade were identified. STUDY SELECTION: Nine listings considered for use as general practitioner databases. DATA EXTRACTION: Each listing was assessed in six ways--quality of information provided, availability for research purposes, cost, potential to provide the correct postal address, ability to identify general practitioners in active practice and comparative advantage over other lists. DATA SYNTHESIS: Each listing has limitations and advantages, with individual peculiarities and variable information relating to identifying characteristics of general practitioners. None was specifically created for research or workforce planning purposes. The Medical Provider File (formerly called the Central Register of Medical Practitioners) was the most used list. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a framework for the ideal database and avenues for its development.