Which dimensions of access are most important when rural residents decide to visit a general practitioner for non-emergency care?

Bernadette Ward, John Humphreys, Matthew McGrail, John Wakerman, Marita Chisholm

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    Objective: Access to primary healthcare (PHC) services is key to improving health outcomes in rural areas. Unfortunately, little is known about which aspect of access is most important. The objective of this study was to determine the relative importance of different dimensions of access in the decisions of rural Australians to utilise PHC provided by general practitioners (GP). 

    Methods: Data were collected from residents of five communities located in 'closely' settled and 'sparsely' settled rural regions. A paired-comparison methodology was used to quantify the relative importance of availability, distance, affordability (cost) and acceptability (preference) in relation to respondents' decisions to utilise a GP service for non-emergency care. 

    Results: Consumers reported that preference for a GP and GP availability are far more important than distance to and cost of the service when deciding to visit a GP for non-emergency care. Important differences in rankings emerged by geographic context, gender and age. 

    Conclusions: Understanding how different dimensions of access influence the utilisation of PHC services is critical in planning the provision of PHC services. This study reports how consumers 'trade-off' the different dimensions of access when accessing GP care in rural Australia. The results show that ensuring 'good' access requires that policymakers and planners should consider other dimensions of access to services besides geography.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)121-126
    Number of pages6
    JournalAustralian Health Review
    Volume39
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2015

    Fingerprint

    General Practitioners
    Primary Health Care
    Costs and Cost Analysis
    Matched-Pair Analysis
    Geography
    Health

    Cite this

    Ward, Bernadette ; Humphreys, John ; McGrail, Matthew ; Wakerman, John ; Chisholm, Marita. / Which dimensions of access are most important when rural residents decide to visit a general practitioner for non-emergency care?. In: Australian Health Review. 2015 ; Vol. 39, No. 2. pp. 121-126.
    @article{c74f5299b4c14d349c0491f44de4c971,
    title = "Which dimensions of access are most important when rural residents decide to visit a general practitioner for non-emergency care?",
    abstract = "Objective: Access to primary healthcare (PHC) services is key to improving health outcomes in rural areas. Unfortunately, little is known about which aspect of access is most important. The objective of this study was to determine the relative importance of different dimensions of access in the decisions of rural Australians to utilise PHC provided by general practitioners (GP). Methods: Data were collected from residents of five communities located in 'closely' settled and 'sparsely' settled rural regions. A paired-comparison methodology was used to quantify the relative importance of availability, distance, affordability (cost) and acceptability (preference) in relation to respondents' decisions to utilise a GP service for non-emergency care. Results: Consumers reported that preference for a GP and GP availability are far more important than distance to and cost of the service when deciding to visit a GP for non-emergency care. Important differences in rankings emerged by geographic context, gender and age. Conclusions: Understanding how different dimensions of access influence the utilisation of PHC services is critical in planning the provision of PHC services. This study reports how consumers 'trade-off' the different dimensions of access when accessing GP care in rural Australia. The results show that ensuring 'good' access requires that policymakers and planners should consider other dimensions of access to services besides geography.",
    author = "Bernadette Ward and John Humphreys and Matthew McGrail and John Wakerman and Marita Chisholm",
    year = "2015",
    doi = "10.1071/AH14030",
    language = "English",
    volume = "39",
    pages = "121--126",
    journal = "Australian Health Review",
    issn = "1743-8462",
    publisher = "BioMed Central",
    number = "2",

    }

    Which dimensions of access are most important when rural residents decide to visit a general practitioner for non-emergency care? / Ward, Bernadette; Humphreys, John; McGrail, Matthew; Wakerman, John; Chisholm, Marita.

    In: Australian Health Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2015, p. 121-126.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Which dimensions of access are most important when rural residents decide to visit a general practitioner for non-emergency care?

    AU - Ward, Bernadette

    AU - Humphreys, John

    AU - McGrail, Matthew

    AU - Wakerman, John

    AU - Chisholm, Marita

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    N2 - Objective: Access to primary healthcare (PHC) services is key to improving health outcomes in rural areas. Unfortunately, little is known about which aspect of access is most important. The objective of this study was to determine the relative importance of different dimensions of access in the decisions of rural Australians to utilise PHC provided by general practitioners (GP). Methods: Data were collected from residents of five communities located in 'closely' settled and 'sparsely' settled rural regions. A paired-comparison methodology was used to quantify the relative importance of availability, distance, affordability (cost) and acceptability (preference) in relation to respondents' decisions to utilise a GP service for non-emergency care. Results: Consumers reported that preference for a GP and GP availability are far more important than distance to and cost of the service when deciding to visit a GP for non-emergency care. Important differences in rankings emerged by geographic context, gender and age. Conclusions: Understanding how different dimensions of access influence the utilisation of PHC services is critical in planning the provision of PHC services. This study reports how consumers 'trade-off' the different dimensions of access when accessing GP care in rural Australia. The results show that ensuring 'good' access requires that policymakers and planners should consider other dimensions of access to services besides geography.

    AB - Objective: Access to primary healthcare (PHC) services is key to improving health outcomes in rural areas. Unfortunately, little is known about which aspect of access is most important. The objective of this study was to determine the relative importance of different dimensions of access in the decisions of rural Australians to utilise PHC provided by general practitioners (GP). Methods: Data were collected from residents of five communities located in 'closely' settled and 'sparsely' settled rural regions. A paired-comparison methodology was used to quantify the relative importance of availability, distance, affordability (cost) and acceptability (preference) in relation to respondents' decisions to utilise a GP service for non-emergency care. Results: Consumers reported that preference for a GP and GP availability are far more important than distance to and cost of the service when deciding to visit a GP for non-emergency care. Important differences in rankings emerged by geographic context, gender and age. Conclusions: Understanding how different dimensions of access influence the utilisation of PHC services is critical in planning the provision of PHC services. This study reports how consumers 'trade-off' the different dimensions of access when accessing GP care in rural Australia. The results show that ensuring 'good' access requires that policymakers and planners should consider other dimensions of access to services besides geography.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84926463300&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1071/AH14030

    DO - 10.1071/AH14030

    M3 - Article

    VL - 39

    SP - 121

    EP - 126

    JO - Australian Health Review

    JF - Australian Health Review

    SN - 1743-8462

    IS - 2

    ER -