Associations between rural background and where South Australian general practitioners work

Abstract

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the association between rural background on practice location of general practitioners (GPs) (rural or urban).<h4>Design</h4>Comparison of data from two postal surveys.<h4>Subjects</h4>268 rural and 236 urban GPs practising in South Australia.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Association between practice location (rural or urban) and demographic characteristics, training, qualifications, and rural background.<h4>Results</h4>Rural GPs were younger than urban GPs (mean age 47 versus 50 years, P < 0.01) and more likely to be male (81% versus 67%, P = 0.001), to be Australian-born (72% versus 61%, P = 0.01), to have a partner (95% versus 85%, P = 0.001), and to have children (94% versus 85%, P = 0.001). Similar proportions of rural and urban GPs were trained in Australia and were Fellows of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, but more rural GPs were vocationally registered (94% versus 84%, P = 0.001). Rural GPs were more likely to have grown up in the country (37% versus 27%, P = 0.02), to have received primary (33% versus 19%, P = 0.001) and secondary (25% versus 13%, P = 0.001) education there, and to have a partner who grew up in the country (49% versus 24%, P = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, only primary education in the country (odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.09-5.56) and partner of rural background (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.96-5.10) were independently associated with rural practice.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our findings support the policy of promoting entry to medical school of students with a rural background and provide an argument for policies that address the needs of partners and maintain quality primary and secondary education in the country.