Research output of Australian general practice: A comparison with medicine, surgery and public health

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines.

Design: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's "PubMed" database.

Main outcome measures: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999.

Results: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65% (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3% (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4% and 37%, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively.

Conclusions: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)77-80
Number of pages4
JournalMedical Journal of Australia
Volume175
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 16 Jul 2001
Externally publishedYes

Cite this

@article{6c0fcc44e3d34b48afb595e594122277,
title = "Research output of Australian general practice: A comparison with medicine, surgery and public health",
abstract = "Objectives: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines.Design: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's {"}PubMed{"} database.Main outcome measures: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999.Results: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65{\%} (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3{\%} (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4{\%} and 37{\%}, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively.Conclusions: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.",
author = "DA Askew and PP Glasziou and {Del Mar}, CB",
year = "2001",
month = "7",
day = "16",
language = "English",
volume = "175",
pages = "77--80",
journal = "Medical Journal of Australia",
issn = "0025-729X",
publisher = "AUSTRALASIAN MED PUBL CO LTD",
number = "2",

}

Research output of Australian general practice : A comparison with medicine, surgery and public health. / Askew, DA; Glasziou, PP; Del Mar, CB.

In: Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 175, No. 2, 16.07.2001, p. 77-80.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Research output of Australian general practice

T2 - A comparison with medicine, surgery and public health

AU - Askew, DA

AU - Glasziou, PP

AU - Del Mar, CB

PY - 2001/7/16

Y1 - 2001/7/16

N2 - Objectives: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines.Design: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's "PubMed" database.Main outcome measures: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999.Results: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65% (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3% (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4% and 37%, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively.Conclusions: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.

AB - Objectives: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines.Design: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's "PubMed" database.Main outcome measures: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999.Results: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65% (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3% (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4% and 37%, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively.Conclusions: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.

M3 - Article

VL - 175

SP - 77

EP - 80

JO - Medical Journal of Australia

JF - Medical Journal of Australia

SN - 0025-729X

IS - 2

ER -