Title |
The Australian Experiment: How Primary Health Care Organizations Supported the Evolution of a Primary Health Care System
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (formerly Journal of the American Board of Family Practice), March 2012
|
DOI | 10.3122/jabfm.2012.02.110219 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Caroline Nicholson, Claire L. Jackson, John E. Marley, Robert Wells |
Abstract |
Primary health care in Australia has undergone 2 decades of change. Starting with a vision for a national health strategy with general practice at its core, Australia established local meso-level primary health care organizations--Divisions of General Practice--moving from focus on individual practitioners to a professional collective local voice. The article identifies how these meso-level organizations have helped the Australian primary health care system evolve by supporting the roll-out of initiatives including national practice accreditation, a focus on quality improvement, expansion of multidisciplinary teams into general practice, regional integration, information technology adoption, and improved access to care. Nevertheless, there are still challenges to ensuring equitable access and the supply and distribution of a primary care workforce, addressing the increasing rates of chronic disease and obesity, and overcoming the fragmentation of funding and accountability in the Australian system. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | 14% |
United States | 1 | 14% |
Panama | 1 | 14% |
Chile | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 3 | 43% |
Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 2 | 2% |
New Zealand | 2 | 2% |
Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
India | 1 | 1% |
Argentina | 1 | 1% |
United States | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 80 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 15 | 17% |
Researcher | 11 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
Professor | 9 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
Other | 23 | 26% |
Unknown | 14 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 34% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 11% |
Social Sciences | 10 | 11% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 7% |
Psychology | 3 | 3% |
Other | 13 | 15% |
Unknown | 17 | 19% |