INTRODUCTION: There are important differences in rural, regional and urban general practice environments. The purpose of this study was to articulate models that explain career satisfaction among general practitioners (GPs) in these practice environments. METHODS: Of 4958 eligible physicians across Canada, 2810 (56.7%) completed a 12- page survey between January and March 2004, from whom a total of 256 GPs in rural, regional and urban communities were selected. Response bias was checked and found to be negligible. We used hierarchical regression analysis to record cumulative R2, standardized beta and significance levels as each predictor was entered. We applied weighting factors to reflect the actual physician population in Canada. RESULTS: The models explained 88.5% of the variance in career satisfaction for GPs in small towns, 88.9% for GPs in regional communities and 86.3% for GPs in urban cities. The explanatory variables consisted of distress and coping, role in community activities, the quality of health care services and access to them, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, workload and organizational structure. CONCLUSION: Career satisfaction for small-town doctors is associated with being able to cope with stress in handling a wide variety of clinical conditions, largely on their own, but with effective collaboration from physicians in larger centres. Rural GPs also enjoy academic responsibilities. Satisfaction for GPs in regional communities also depends on coping with stress and the ability to maintain an efficiently operating set of secondary- level health services in their community. Satisfaction for urban GPs is associated with collegiality, which dampens stress, and access to a full range of health services, including community, hospital, mental health and rehabilitation services. Career satisfaction for all GPs is associated with equity, manageable workloads and effective practice management; however, all of these professional issues contribute, in small increments, to satisfaction.
INTRODUCTION: There are important differences in rural, regional and urban general practice environments. The purpose of this study was to articulate models that explain career satisfaction among general practitioners (GPs) in these practice environments. METHODS: Of 4958 eligible physicians across Canada, 2810 (56.7%) completed a 12- page survey between January and March 2004, from whom a total of 256 GPs in rural, regional and urban communities were selected. Response bias was checked and found to be negligible. We used hierarchical regression analysis to record cumulative R2, standardized beta and significance levels as each predictor was entered. We applied weighting factors to reflect the actual physician population in Canada. RESULTS: The models explained 88.5% of the variance in career satisfaction for GPs in small towns, 88.9% for GPs in regional communities and 86.3% for GPs in urban cities. The explanatory variables consisted of distress and coping, role in community activities, the quality of health care services and access to them, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, workload and organizational structure. CONCLUSION: Career satisfaction for small-town doctors is associated with being able to cope with stress in handling a wide variety of clinical conditions, largely on their own, but with effective collaboration from physicians in larger centres. Rural GPs also enjoy academic responsibilities. Satisfaction for GPs in regional communities also depends on coping with stress and the ability to maintain an efficiently operating set of secondary- level health services in their community. Satisfaction for urban GPs is associated with collegiality, which dampens stress, and access to a full range of health services, including community, hospital, mental health and rehabilitation services. Career satisfaction for all GPs is associated with equity, manageable workloads and effective practice management; however, all of these professional issues contribute, in small increments, to satisfaction.
Authors: Elizabeth Lockhart; Gillian A Hawker; Noah M Ivers; Tara O'Brien; Geetha Mukerji; Pauline Pariser; Ian Stanaitis; Laura Pus; G Ross Baker Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: B Le Floch; H Bastiaens; J Y Le Reste; H Lingner; R Hoffman; S Czachowski; R Assenova; T H Koskela; Z Klemenc-Ketis; P Nabbe; A Sowinska; T Montier; L Peremans Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Markku Sumanen; Tiina Aine; Hannu Halila; Teppo Heikkilä; Harri Hyppölä; Santero Kujala; Jukka Vänskä; Irma Virjo; Kari Mattila Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Christy E Newman; Asha Persson; John B F de Wit; Robert H Reynolds; Peter G Canavan; Susan C Kippax; Michael R Kidd Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: B Le Floch; H Bastiaens; J Y Le Reste; H Lingner; R D Hoffman; S Czachowski; R Assenova; T H Koskela; Z Klemenc-Ketis; P Nabbe; A Sowinska; T Montier; L Peremans Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 2.497