IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Canadian family physicians’ decision to collaborate: Age, period and cohort effects

Listed author(s):
  • Sarma, Sisira
  • Devlin, Rose Anne
  • Thind, Amardeep
  • Chu, Man-Kee

One of the core primary care reform initiatives seen across provinces in Canada is the introduction of inter-professional primary healthcare teams in which family physicians are encouraged to collaborate with other health professionals. Although a higher proportion of physicians are collaborating with various health professionals now compared to the previous decade, a substantial number of physicians still do not work in a collaborative setting. The objective of this paper is to examine the age, period and cohort effects of Canadian family physicians’ decisions to collaborate with seven types of health professionals: specialists, nurse practitioners, nurses, dieticians, physiotherapists, psychologists and occupational therapists. To this end, this paper employs a multivariate probit model consisting of seven equations and a cross-classified fixed-effects strategy to explain the collaborative decisions of family physicians. Utilizing three cross-sectional physician surveys from Canada over the 2001–2007 period, cohorts are defined over five-year intervals according to their year of graduation from medical school. We find that newer cohorts of physicians are more likely to collaborate with dieticians, physiotherapists, psychologists and occupational therapists; newer female cohorts are more likely to collaborate with nurses while newer male cohorts are less likely to collaborate with nurses but more likely to collaborate with specialists. Older physicians are more likely to collaborate with specialists, physiotherapists, psychologists, and occupational therapists; the age effect for nurses is U-shaped for male physicians while it is inverse U-shaped for females. Family physicians are collaborating more with all seven health professionals in 2004 and 2007 compared to 2001. Belonging to a group practice has a largely positive influence on collaborations; and being paid by a fee-for-service remuneration scheme exerts a negative influence on collaboration, ceteris paribus. The findings suggest that combining a non-fee-for-service remuneration arrangement with a group practice structure would facilitate effective collaboration.

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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

Volume (Year): 75 (2012)
Issue (Month): 10 ()
Pages: 1811-1819

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:10:p:1811-1819
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.07.028
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Postal:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Gené-Badia, Joan & Ascaso, Carlos & Escaramis-Babiano, Georgia & Catalán-Ramos, Arantxa & Pujol-Ribera, Enriqueta & Sampietro-Colom, Laura, 2008. "Population and primary health-care team characteristics explain the quality of the service," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 335-344, May.
  2. Jinhu Li & Jeremiah Hurley & Philip DeCicca & Gioia Buckley, 2014. "Physician Response To Pay‐For‐Performance: Evidence From A Natural Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(8), pages 962-978, August.
  3. Yang Yang & Kenneth C. Land, 2008. "Age–Period–Cohort Analysis of Repeated Cross-Section Surveys: Fixed or Random Effects?," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 36(3), pages 297-326, February.
  4. Reither, Eric N. & Hauser, Robert M. & Yang, Yang, 2009. "Do birth cohorts matter? Age-period-cohort analyses of the obesity epidemic in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 1439-1448, November.
  5. Sarma, Sisira & Thind, Amardeep & Chu, Man-Kee, 2011. "Do new cohorts of family physicians work less compared to their older predecessors? The evidence from Canada," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(12), pages 2049-2058, June.
  6. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2003. "Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(3), pages 278-294, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:10:p:1811-1819. 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.