Mutual influences of general practitioners in partnerships
The aim of this study was to find out whether or not general practitioners (GPs) within the same partnership show more similarities in attitudes and behaviour than GPs in different partnerships, and what the causes of these similarities might be. Knowledge of the causes of patterns of similarities within medical teams contributes to understanding medical practice variation, which is crucial in developing effective health care policies. Data were used from the Dutch National Survey of General Practice ('87/'88), consisting of a stratified sample of 161 Dutch GPs, who served 335,000 patients in total. To find out whether GPs in the same partnership are indeed more similar than GPs randomly chosen from different partnerships, we constructed two kinds of pairs: all possible pairs of GPs working in the same partnership (actual pairs), and randomly constructed pairs of GPs who are not working in the same partnership (random pairs). For each pair difference scores were computed for a variety of attitudes and behaviour. Difference scores for actual and random pairs were analysed using multi-level analysis. Most differences in attitudes and behaviour were smaller for actual pairs than for random pairs. Furthermore, in the majority of the cases differences were no longer statistically significant after explanatory variables indicating selection, gradual adaptation and rapid adaptation through shared circumstances were taken into account. It was found that Dutch GPs working in the same partnership showed more resemblance in attitudes and behaviour than GPs not working in the same partnership. Most indications point towards circumstances, and to a lesser extent towards adaptation, as an explanation of similarities within partnerships. The implication of this study is that medical practice variations are not merely individual differences in preferred practice style, but are patterned by social processes in partnerships and local circumstances.
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): 57 (2003)
Issue (Month): 8 (October)
|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:57:y:2003:i:8:p:1515-1524. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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.