PURPOSE: To understand the factors that affect the distribution of physiotherapists in Ontario by examining three potential influences in the multi-payer physiotherapy (PT) market: population need, critical mass (related to academic health science centres [AHSCs]), and market forces. METHODS: Physiotherapist density and distribution were calculated from 2003 and 2005 College of Physiotherapists of Ontario registration data. Physiotherapists' workplaces were classified as not-for-profit (NFP) hospitals, other NFP, or for-profit (FP), and their locations were classified by census division (CD) types (cities and counties). RESULTS: Physiotherapist density varied significantly and distribution was neither uniformly responsive to population need, nor driven primarily by market forces. The largest factor was an AHSC in a CD; physiotherapists locate disproportionately in NFP hospitals in AHSCs rather than in the growing FP sector. CONCLUSIONS: While some patterns can be discerned in the distribution and densities of physiotherapists across Ontario, further work needs to be done to identify why population need and market forces appear to be less influential, and why CDs with AHSCs are so attractive to physiotherapists. With this additional information, it may be possible to identify ways to influence uneven distribution in the future.
PURPOSE: To understand the factors that affect the distribution of physiotherapists in Ontario by examining three potential influences in the multi-payer physiotherapy (PT) market: population need, critical mass (related to academic health science centres [AHSCs]), and market forces. METHODS: Physiotherapist density and distribution were calculated from 2003 and 2005 College of Physiotherapists of Ontario registration data. Physiotherapists' workplaces were classified as not-for-profit (NFP) hospitals, other NFP, or for-profit (FP), and their locations were classified by census division (CD) types (cities and counties). RESULTS: Physiotherapist density varied significantly and distribution was neither uniformly responsive to population need, nor driven primarily by market forces. The largest factor was an AHSC in a CD; physiotherapists locate disproportionately in NFP hospitals in AHSCs rather than in the growing FP sector. CONCLUSIONS: While some patterns can be discerned in the distribution and densities of physiotherapists across Ontario, further work needs to be done to identify why population need and market forces appear to be less influential, and why CDs with AHSCs are so attractive to physiotherapists. With this additional information, it may be possible to identify ways to influence uneven distribution in the future.
Entities:
Keywords:
delivery of health care market; demography; health manpower; policy
Authors: Darryl Yardley; Robert Gordon; Ryan Freeburn; Colleen So; David Beauchamp; Michel D Landry; Sharon Switzer-McIntyre; Cathy Evans; Dina Brooks Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2008-10-10 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Diem Tran; Linda McGillis Hall; Aileen Davis; Michel D Landry; Dawn Burnett; Katherine Berg; Susan Jaglal Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 2.655