PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 1734187

General practitioner databases in Australia.

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D C Saltman, A Mant. 1992-01-06. General practitioner databases in Australia.. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1992.tb126378.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Whole genome characterisation of Australian and New Zealand OsHV-1 'μVar' like variants over time.

Ostreid herpesvirus 1 (OsHV-1) is a major pathogen of Pacific oysters (Magallana gigas), linked to mass mortality events worldwide and presents a substantial threat to global aquaculture. Since 2010, mortality events have been occurring in Pacific oysters within Australia with the cause being an OsHV-1 microvariant highly similar to OsHV-1 μVar first detected in France, 2008. In this study, fifteen OsHV-1 whole genomes were assembled from Australian and New Zealand mortality events, including twelve newly sequenced genomes and three assembled from public datasets. Whole-genome phylogenetic analyses indicate that Australian and New Zealand OsHV-1 isolates form a distinct clade, separate from European and East Asian genomes, and with moderate regional and temporal divergence across the past 14 years. Across the dataset, multiple biologically relevant mutations were observed in genes of known function, including DNA polymerase, ribonucleotide reductase subunits, and apoptosis-related proteins, though most mutations occurred in uncharacterised genes. These findings highlight the limitations of single-gene typing and support the need for whole-genome approaches in understanding OsHV-1 evolution. Critically, the lack of recent whole-genome data, particularly from East and Southeast Asia, restricts the ability to trace viral origins and detect novel variants, underscoring the need for expanded global OsHV-1 genomic surveillance.

Australia

Interest holder-driven research priorities in sexual and reproductive health for migrant and refugee adolescents and young adults in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and prioritise sexual and reproductive health research priorities for migrant and refugee adolescents and young adults in Australia using a priority setting partnership approach. METHODS: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership was conducted with 92 interest holders: 31 youth from migrant and refugee backgrounds and 61 professionals (healthcare providers, researchers, policymakers and community leaders), recruited online and in-person. The priority setting partnership process included a rapid evidence scan, an online uncertainty survey, evidence verification, interim prioritisation and a final consensus workshop. RESULTS: Eighty-three research uncertainties yielded 11 final priorities across four sexual and reproductive health domains: sexual and reproductive health literacy, sexual violence prevention, accessible services and maternal health. A striking divergence emerged between youth and professional priorities only 3 achieved combined high-priority consensus. Youth prioritised a broader range of topics, including abortion access (rated high by youth but low by professionals), while professionals prioritised fewer areas. Two priorities achieved consensus: community-based maternal health support and barriers to reporting gender-based violence. CONCLUSION: This is the first priority setting partnership to identify sexual and reproductive health research priorities for migrant and refugee youth in Australia and to uniquely highlight substantial misalignment between youth and professional priorities. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: These identified priorities provide a foundation for targeted research, culturally responsive policy and more equitable sexual and reproductive health service provision for migrant and refugee adolescents and young adults.

Australia