PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2497865

High and low incomes in general practice.

Abstract

The Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration deals with average incomes and costs, and little evidence is available on local variability. In a study on general practice the distribution of high and low incomes was assessed. High income practices (defined as those with net incomes per partner of more than 35,000 pounds a year) were more likely to be larger, to have younger partners, and to be located in affluent areas. Low income practices (with a net income of less than 20,000 pounds per partner) were smaller, located in more urban areas, and more likely to have Asian partners. High income practices had higher costs per patient and more staff resources. Low income practices had fewer practice resources and faced great disincentives to investment. These practices were concentrated in less affluent areas, where the need for improved organisation of practices is greatest. General practice is becoming increasingly divided between high income, high cost practices and those with low incomes and few resources.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B Leese, N Bosanquet. 1989-04-08. High and low incomes in general practice.. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.298.6678.932

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Health inequalities in Scotland and England: the contrasting journeys of ideas from research into policy.

Both the UK's Labour Government and Scotland's devolved Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Executive have committed themselves to reducing health inequalities. Furthermore, both institutions have emphasised the importance of using evidence to inform policy responses. In light of such political commitments, a significant amount of work has been undertaken in the field of health inequalities in order to: (i) review the available research evidence; (ii) assess the extent to which policies have been based on this research evidence; and (iii) evaluate the success (or failure) of policies to tackle health inequalities. Yet so far only limited attention has been given to exploring how key actors involved in research-policy dialogues understand the processes involved. In an attempt to address this gap, this article draws on data from semi-structured interviews with 58 key actors in the field of health inequalities research and policymaking in the UK to argue that it is ideas, rather than research evidence, which have travelled from research into policy. The descriptions of the varying journeys of these ideas fit three types--successful, partial and fractured--each of which is outlined with reference to one example. The paper then employs existing theories about research-policy relations and the movement of ideas in an attempt to illuminate and better understand the contrasting journeys. In the concluding discussion, it is argued that the third approach, which focuses on the entrepreneurial processes involved in the marketing of ideas, is most helpful in understanding the research findings, but that this needs to be discussed in relation to the political context within which negotiations take place.

England↗