Reform and autonomy: perceptions of the Australian general practice community
Reforms in health care in the 1990s across industrialised nations have had profound consequences for the autonomy of general/family practitioners (GPs). Research suggests that the professional autonomy of GPs is declining across countries, related to policy reform processes and to challenges from other actors. Important questions remain, however, around appropriate ways to conceptualise autonomy, and about the perceptions that GPs themselves have of their autonomy. It is these questions in the context of more than a decade of general practice reform in Australia that are the focus of this paper. Using a multi-component model of autonomy, which separates out micro, meso and macro dimensions of autonomy, we undertook an analysis of 343 items on autonomy and reform collected from 3 key general practice journals. We argue that members of the GP community profess an enjoyment for general practice, and operate with an ideal of what it means to be a GP. However, the reform process is perceived to challenge this enjoyment and the ideal of professional practice. In particular, there exists uncertainty as to what it means to be a GP, with members of the GP community expressing a loss of control across important dimensions of autonomy. While numerically most discussion focused on control over earnings, the intensity of feeling was most evident around control over clinical practice. Our results suggest the importance of using a multi-component model of autonomy, as it allows for a nuanced analysis of the relationship between the reform process and autonomy. At the same time, however, our analysis indicates that it is also crucial to recognise autonomy is constituted by the interaction of these components.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 10 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:10:p:2229-2239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.